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 describes the tool's dual functionality (list vs. switch), the immediate effect of switching ('takes effect immediately for subsequent tool calls'), and the scope of listing ('including sub-tenants within organizations'). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers the core behavior well.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's dual functionality, explaining the conditional behavior based on parameter presence, and describing the immediate effect. There is zero wasted language.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, usage, and behavioral effects. It doesn't describe the format of the listed tenants or potential error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, it's nearly complete.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of omitting the parameter ('lists all available tenants') versus providing it ('switches to that tenant or sub-tenant'), which goes beyond the schema's technical description.

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 with specific verbs ('switch' and 'list') and resources ('active tenant for this MCP session'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tenant management rather than agent, knowledge, or tool configuration operations.

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 explicitly states when to use each mode: 'If no tenantId is provided, lists all available tenants' and 'If a tenantId is provided, switches to that tenant or sub-tenant.' It provides clear conditional guidance for both parameter scenarios.

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