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 effectively explains the core behavior (publishing/unpublishing changes live status) and adds critical context about required roles, which is valuable. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., impact on ongoing conversations), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly explain the tool's purpose and prerequisites without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the action, status implications, and role requirements, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or broader system impacts. This leaves room for improvement in fully guiding an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'agentId' format or 'publish' implications further). However, with 0 parameters, the baseline would be 4, but here it's slightly lower due to no extra value added, yet still above the 3 baseline since the schema is comprehensive.

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 ('publish or unpublish an agent') and the resource ('agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_agent', 'update_agent', or 'delete_agent' by focusing on live/draft status management. It explicitly defines what published vs. unpublished means, avoiding vagueness.

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 change an agent's live/draft status) and includes prerequisites (required roles: owner, admin, or developer). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'update_agent' for other changes), which prevents a perfect score.

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