BotUyo MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation 'REPLACES the current list' (destructive/replacement behavior) and role requirements. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if disabling tools affects active agents), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each essential: purpose, prerequisite, and access requirement. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Structure is logical and efficient.

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 and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a mutation tool: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral aspects like replacement and permissions. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, which could be useful for agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that tool IDs should be obtained from 'list_available_tools', providing context beyond the schema's technical definitions. This helps the agent understand parameter semantics practically.

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 'Set' and resource 'which tools are enabled for an agent', specifying it REPLACES the current list. It distinguishes from siblings like 'configure_agent_tool' (which might modify individual tools) and 'list_available_tools' (which is read-only).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use list_available_tools to see the valid tool IDs for your tenant first' (prerequisite), and 'Requires role: owner, admin, or developer' (access control). This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives like checking available tools first.

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