contractor-license-mcp-server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what data is returned (portal URLs, health status, trades) and the scope ('currently supported'), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond basic annotations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes all necessary details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), rich annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), and clear purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could slightly improve by mentioning the default response format or when to choose markdown vs. json, but it adequately covers the tool's function and scope.

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%, with the single parameter 'response_format' fully documented in the schema (enum: markdown/json, default: markdown). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List all US states'), resource ('supported for contractor license verification'), and scope ('including portal URLs, health status, and available trades'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clv_batch_verify, clv_search_by_name, and clv_verify_license by focusing on metadata listing rather than verification 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 implies usage context by specifying what information is returned (portal URLs, health status, trades), suggesting it's for discovering available verification options. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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