TrainingPeaks-MCP

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 mentions checking auth status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what the response includes (e.g., validity, expiration, user info), whether it has side effects (e.g., logging, token refresh), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with authentication systems.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance, making it front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 complexity of authentication tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, error details, token info) or any prerequisites (e.g., requires initial auth setup). For a tool that agents might rely on for error recovery, this is a significant gap.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline 4 is correct for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Check auth status'), which is a clear verb+action combination. However, it doesn't specify what resource or system this applies to (e.g., 'Check authentication status for the TrainingPeaks API'), making it somewhat vague compared to the more specific sibling tools like 'tp_get_workout' or 'tp_get_profile'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use only when other tools return auth errors'), providing clear context and exclusions. This directly addresses the agent's decision-making by specifying the triggering condition, which is excellent guidance.

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