API Request 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 returning JSON responses and supporting multiple protocols/proxies, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like error handling, timeout settings, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with non-JSON responses. For a general-purpose API tool, this is a significant gap.

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 Chinese that conveys the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity of a general API request tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter filling.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning protocol and proxy support, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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: '发送API请求并返回JSON响应' (send API request and return JSON response). It specifies the action (send request) and outcome (return JSON response), and mentions support for multiple protocols and proxies. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings since there are none, so 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. It mentions support for multiple protocols and proxies, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. With no siblings, this is less critical, but the description lacks any usage context.

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