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. It discloses that the tool returns historical data (snapshots) and is for inspection purposes, which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or error conditions, leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a utility note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks details on return format (beyond listing fields), error handling, or operational constraints. For a tool with minimal structured data, it should do more to compensate, leaving room for improvement.

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 100% description coverage, with 'agentId' documented as 'The MongoDB ID of the agent'. The description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but since schema coverage is high and there is only one parameter, the baseline is elevated. It implies the tool operates on a specific agent, which aligns with the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('version history for an agent'), specifying it returns 'all saved snapshots with version number, change source, and timestamp'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agents' (which lists agents, not versions) and 'restore_agent_version' (which restores, not lists).

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 usage ('Useful to see what changed and when before deciding to restore'), implying it should be used for inspection prior to restoration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_agent' for current state), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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