Kaspersky OpenTIP MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation that may return incomplete data. The description adds context about the file submission method ('via the web portal'), which is useful beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result format. With annotations covering core safety and data completeness, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value without contradiction.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter or usage context.

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 1 parameter, annotations covering safety and data completeness, and an output schema that likely handles return values, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and submission method, but could improve by clarifying differences from siblings or adding more behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 details. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying 'file_hash' is needed for retrieval. However, with only 1 parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema coverage but the simplicity reduces the burden.

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 action ('Get full analysis results') and the target resource ('a file that was submitted via the web portal'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_file' or 'search_hash', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'submitted via the web portal', which implies a prerequisite, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_file' or 'search_hash'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are included, leaving usage context vague.

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