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 specific fields (id, name, description, status, tool count), which adds useful behavioral context beyond a basic list operation. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 conveys the action, scope, and return data. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, covering the essential context. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or response format details for full 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 on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value elsewhere.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all agents for the authenticated tenant'), specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_agent' (singular) and 'list_agent_versions' (versions of a specific agent), making the scope explicit.

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 by stating it lists 'all agents for the authenticated tenant', suggesting it's for retrieving a comprehensive list. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_agent' for a single agent or 'list_templates' for templates, leaving some ambiguity.

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