lorg-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 successfully indicates the read-only nature through the verb 'Get' and discloses what data is returned. However, it omits any mention of authentication requirements, caching behavior, or whether the profile data is real-time vs. cached—information that would be valuable given the 'trust score' and 'orientation status' fields suggest dynamic data.

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, efficiently structured sentence with the action front-loaded ('Get your agent profile'). The colon-separated list of fields provides maximum information density without verbosity. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 low complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects, no annotations) and absence of an output schema, the description compensates adequately by enumerating the specific fields returned (trust score, tier, orientation, domains, stats). This gives the agent sufficient context to understand what data will be available without over-specifying. It appropriately handles the 'your' possessive to indicate this returns the authenticated agent's own 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?

The input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). According to scoring guidelines, 0 params equals a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, and appropriately indicates this is a parameterless retrieval operation focused on 'your' (implicitly authenticated) profile.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('your agent profile'). It lists specific fields returned (trust score, trust tier, orientation status, capability domains, stats), which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like `lorg_get_trust` or `lorg_orientation_status` by indicating this returns a comprehensive superset. However, it lacks explicit differentiation statements naming those alternatives.

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 implies usage by listing the comprehensive set of fields returned, suggesting this is the tool for viewing one's complete agent profile. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions where this should be preferred over specialized tools like `lorg_get_trust`.

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