BotUyo 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. It clearly discloses key behavioral traits: it's 'read-only' (non-destructive), returns a 'complete, documented example' (output format), and serves as a 'reference' (educational purpose). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the example is static or dynamically generated. Given the lack of annotations, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a bulleted list of specific scenarios. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity or practical value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters but significant contextual complexity.

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 complexity (educational reference with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description does a strong job: it explains what the tool returns, its read-only nature, and when to use it. However, it doesn't detail the output format (e.g., JSON structure depth) or potential errors, which could be helpful for an agent. With no output schema, some additional context on returns would improve completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the tool's context.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a complete, documented example of an agent configuration JSON with ALL possible fields explained.' It uses specific verbs ('returns', 'explained') and clearly distinguishes this reference tool from sibling tools that actually create, modify, or manage agents (e.g., create_agent, update_agent, import_agent_json).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this as a reference when creating or editing agents' and lists specific use cases under 'Useful for:' (e.g., new users learning, checking fields before import, understanding components). It also clarifies when NOT to use it: 'This is a read-only reference tool — it doesn't create or modify anything,' distinguishing it from alternatives like import_agent_json or create_agent.

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