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 grouping into categories but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that front-loads the purpose and details the grouping structure. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity in English contexts.

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, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error cases, or operational context, making it incomplete for full agent understanding without additional inference.

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%, with the single parameter 'agentId' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format or constraints for 'agentId'), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Lista las configs de tools') and the resource ('de un agente'), specifying it groups configurations into categories: configured (single and multi-instance), enabled without config, and multi-instance summary. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tool_config' or 'list_available_tools', which is why it's not a 5.

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 such as 'get_tool_config' (for a specific tool) or 'list_available_tools' (for catalog). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context, relying solely on the implied need to list configurations for a given agent.

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