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 states the tool tests a connection, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't specify what 'test' entails (e.g., whether it performs an actual API call, returns status codes, or checks credentials). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and potential side effects.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence—with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. This efficiency is ideal for a 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about what the test involves (e.g., success/failure indicators, error handling) or how it fits with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral detail to be fully complete for agent use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given because the absence of parameters reduces the need for semantic explanation, and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 tool's purpose: 'Test connection to XAPIHub API'. It specifies the verb ('Test connection') and the target resource ('XAPIHub API'), which is more informative than just restating the name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like get_api_details), which prevents 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), typical use cases (e.g., verifying API availability before other operations), or relationships to sibling tools (e.g., whether this should be called before get_api_details). This lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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