XAPIHub MCP Extension

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets data but doesn't describe what 'recent' means (e.g., time frame, recency criteria), whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or requires specific permissions. This is inadequate for a read operation with zero annotation coverage, as key behavioral traits are missing.

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 without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter, but it earns its place by being direct and avoiding 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'recent accessed projects' entails (e.g., definition of 'recent', project attributes returned), behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a tool with no structured metadata, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'organizationId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the organization context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 projects'), specifying the source ('from XAPIHub API') and scope ('for a specific organization'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_accessed_organizations' (which gets organizations) and 'search_projects' (which searches rather than gets recent accessed ones). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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 'search_projects' or 'get_accessed_organizations'. It mentions the context ('for a specific organization') but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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