Get HitKeep MCP Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds only the scope of returned content ('local MCP usage guidance...'), which is useful but not deeply behavioral; it does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the key topics without filler. Every phrase earns its place, and it is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no-input help tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and content domains. No additional behavioral or return-value explanation is necessary given the output schema and simple nature.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries full coverage and there is no parameter ambiguity. The description appropriately skips parameter details; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not add unnecessary noise.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource: 'local MCP usage guidance, token setup, privacy boundaries, date ranges, and filter syntax.' This distinguishes it from sibling data-retrieval tools like hitkeep_get_event_names or hitkeep_get_site_overview, making its purpose immediately obvious.

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 implies usage for obtaining MCP-related help by listing concrete topics like token setup and filter syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as hitkeep_get_api_reference, hitkeep_get_doc, or hitkeep_search_docs. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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