XAPIHub MCP Extension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get API details' and 'filter endpoint', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure, pagination details). For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and resource, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key elements. Overall, it's appropriately sized and avoids redundancy.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error cases, or behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'size' parameters but not described). For a tool that likely returns detailed API information, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema fully documents all 9 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'specific catalogue collection' and 'filter endpoint', which loosely relates to parameters like 'catalogueId' and 'collectionId', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or context for optional filters like 'creators' or 'collections'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 states the tool 'Get API details for a specific catalogue collection using filter endpoint from XAPIHub API', which provides a verb ('Get') and resource ('API details'), but it's vague about what 'API details' entails (e.g., metadata, endpoints, configurations) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_catalogues' or 'search_projects'. It specifies the endpoint source ('XAPIHub API') but lacks specificity on the exact nature of the details retrieved.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'specific catalogue collection' and 'filter endpoint', but it doesn't indicate scenarios for use, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_catalogues' (which might list catalogues) or 'search_projects'. Usage is implied through parameter context but not stated clearly.

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