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 multi-step process (reads from local filesystem, uploads via Cloudinary API, updates widgetConfig), discloses technical constraints (supported formats, max size 2MB), and implies a mutation operation (uploading and updating). It doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 structured: first sentence states the core purpose, second explains the process, third provides technical constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the process, constraints, and purpose. It could be more complete by mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, URL, error details) or any authentication requirements, but it covers the essential context given the available structured data.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the 'mediaType' parameter ('avatar or logo') and implies file format constraints for 'filePath', but doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Upload a local image file'), the target resource ('to the CDN and assign it to an agent'), and the purpose ('as avatar or logo'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'select_avatar' or 'list_avatars' by specifying it's an upload operation rather than selection or listing.

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 about when to use this tool: for uploading local image files to assign as agent avatars or logos. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools (e.g., 'select_avatar' might be an alternative for choosing from existing avatars).

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