Pressable MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying read-only access, but fails to disclose what site details are returned, error handling (e.g., site not found), authentication requirements, or rate limiting considerations.

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?

Extremely concise at 9 words in a single sentence. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Get'. No redundant or wasted text. Appropriate brevity for a simple lookup operation.

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?

Adequate for a simple CRUD retrieval operation with one parameter. However, given the rich sibling ecosystem (get_site_metrics, get_site_usage, update_site), it lacks context about what 'details' encompass versus those specialized tools. No output schema exists, so description should ideally summarize returned fields.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the 'id' parameter accepts 'site ID or site name'. The description mirrors this with 'by ID or name' but adds no additional semantic value such as ID format examples, validation rules, or precedence if both ID and name match different sites.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'site' and scope 'specific', implying single entity retrieval. The 'by ID or name' clause distinguishes lookup method. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling pressable_list_sites or pressable_get_site_metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus pressable_list_sites or other site-related getters. While 'specific site' implies use when targeting one known site, there are no explicit when/not-when clauses or references to alternatives.

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