BotUyo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the two operational modes and the automatic enabledTools behavior, but lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens when toolName already exists. It provides useful context but not comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by bullet-point modes, using bold formatting for emphasis. It's appropriately sized for the complexity, though the second paragraph could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good operational context but lacks information about return values, error handling, or system constraints. It's adequate for understanding what the tool does but incomplete for full implementation guidance.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the distinction between toolName usage in single vs. multi-instance modes and mentioning params as 'invisibles al LLM', but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 verb ('crea o actualiza') and resource ('config de un tool para un agente'), with specific differentiation from siblings by focusing on tool configuration rather than agent creation/deletion or knowledge management. It distinguishes between single-instance and multi-instance modes, making the purpose highly specific.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use each mode: single-instance for configuring existing tools with fixed parameters, and multi-instance for creating virtual instances based on real tools (requiring baseTool). The description also mentions automatic addition to enabledTools, providing clear operational context.

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