Pokemon 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch the stats,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what 'stats' includes (e.g., numeric values, types). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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 very concise ('tool to fetch the stats of a pokemon'), using only one sentence without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'Fetches the stats of a Pokémon').

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'stats' entails, potential errors, or return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is for specifying a pokemon, but doesn't clarify format (e.g., name, ID), constraints, or examples. This is insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'tool to fetch the stats of a pokemon' states a clear verb ('fetch') and resource ('stats of a pokemon'), making the purpose understandable. However, it uses vague language ('tool to fetch' instead of more specific phrasing like 'retrieves' or 'returns') and doesn't differentiate from siblings (though none exist). It avoids tautology by not just restating the name 'get-pokemon-stats'.

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, such as prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts. It merely states what it does without indicating scenarios where it's appropriate or not. With no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, but usage context is still missing.

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