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 explains the scraping and indexing process, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the URL is inaccessible. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first explains the core functionality, and the second provides important context about subsequent usage. There's zero wasted language or 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the core purpose and mentions a related tool, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, performance characteristics, or what the tool returns. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain the return value, which it doesn't.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 ('Add a URL to the knowledge base'), the mechanism ('scrape the page content and index it for intelligent search'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'associate_knowledge_to_agent' as a follow-up action. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to add URL-based content to the knowledge base) and mentions a related tool ('associate_knowledge_to_agent') for subsequent actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives for different content types (e.g., file uploads).

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