XAPIHub MCP Extension

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'recent' means (time window, count limit), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or what format the returned data takes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and behavioral uncertainty around 'recent' and authentication requirements, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context about what the tool returns, how results are structured, or important behavioral constraints that would help an agent use it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, though it could have mentioned why no parameters are needed (e.g., 'returns all recently accessed organizations for the current user').

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 action ('Get') and resource ('recent accessed organizations from XAPIHub API'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'get_recent_accessed_projects' which suggests similar functionality for a different resource type.

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 like 'get_recent_accessed_projects' or 'get_current_user'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent select between these similar retrieval tools.

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