Sharesight MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior ('Invalidates ALL access and refresh tokens'), which is critical, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens after revocation (e.g., error responses, confirmation). For a high-impact tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action ('Disconnects API access for the user') and immediately specifying the scope ('Invalidates ALL access and refresh tokens'). Every word contributes essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, security-critical) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses crucial details like authentication requirements, error handling, and confirmation of success, which are necessary for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'client_id' documented as 'The client application ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how to obtain the client_id or its format. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Disconnects API access for the user') and resource ('API access'), with explicit scope ('Invalidates ALL access and refresh tokens'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'apply_coupon_code' or 'update_portfolio_user_setting' by focusing on authentication revocation rather than coupon, investment, or portfolio management.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention any specific scenarios (e.g., security incidents, user deactivation) or warn against misuse, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.