boost_mcp_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the output (checkout URL and invoice), which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the order is immediately charged, whether it modifies the server's listing, or any prerequisite state. This is a minor gap, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the return values. It contains zero redundant words and is easy to scan.

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 has no output schema and only three parameters (fully documented in the schema), the description provides enough to understand the core behavior and return type. However, it lacks details about the ordering flow and potential failure modes, which would be useful for a transaction-like operation. Still, for a simple initiate-order tool, it is largely complete.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'by ID', which is already in the schema. Per the guidelines, with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb 'Initiate' and clearly states the resource ('sponsorship / boost order for an MCP server by ID') and the return value ('Stripe checkout session URL and x402 invoice'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_boost_pricing and get_boost_status, which are query-only.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to start a boost order for a given server ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for pricing, see get_boost_pricing'). Since the context is unambiguous, a 4 is appropriate.

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