networklytics-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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves data from a 'public' share link and handles password-protected links (via the optional password parameter), adding useful context about access requirements. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool with no output schema. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by details on returns and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the second lists outputs, and the third specifies when to use it. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-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 retrieving analysis results with no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job by detailing what is returned (e.g., network statistics, sentiment analysis) and usage context. However, it lacks information on response structure or potential errors, which could hinder an agent's ability to handle outputs correctly. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps for a tool with rich return data.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the parameters (token and password). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the token is for a 'public NetworkLytics share link' and mentioning password protection, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description compensates slightly but not significantly.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('YouTube comment network analysis result from a public NetworkLytics share link'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_analysis_by_id' by specifying the share link/token input method. It provides a comprehensive list of what is returned (network statistics, top influencers, sentiment analysis, etc.), making the purpose explicit and detailed.

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 this when a user shares a NetworkLytics share URL or token.' This provides clear context for invocation and differentiates it from alternatives like 'get_analysis_by_id' (which likely uses a different identifier). It directly addresses the usage scenario without ambiguity.

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