BotUyo MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool shows connected channels and provides admin panel links, which adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple status check. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key outputs. Every element (what it gets, what channels, what it provides) earns its place with zero waste.

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?

For a simple read operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains what information is returned (channel status and admin links) but doesn't describe the return format or potential limitations. Given the low complexity, it meets minimum viable standards.

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% for the single parameter 'agentId', which is documented as 'The MongoDB ID of the agent'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and resource 'channel connection status of an agent', specifying the channels involved (WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram, Web). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_agent' (general agent info) by focusing on channel status, though it doesn't explicitly name 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 when needing to check agent channel connections, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'get_agent' or other agent-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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