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 mentions that the tool lists free 3D avatars and shows name, format, and category, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 (simple list operation with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns (name, format, category), but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety or performance, which would be helpful for an agent. It meets basic requirements but has clear gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the schema fully covers the input structure.

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 tool's purpose: 'Lista los avatares 3D gratuitos disponibles en el catálogo' (List the free 3D avatars available in the catalog). It specifies the verb (list), resource (3D avatars), and scope (free, in catalog), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'select_avatar' or 'upload_agent_media', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'select_avatar' (which might be for choosing an avatar) or 'upload_agent_media' (which might involve uploading avatars), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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