Standard Metrics MCP Server

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 pagination defaults and limits, which is useful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure).

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the main text rather than as a separate 'Args' section.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, which are crucial for a tool with 2 parameters in a server with many similar tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that 'page' and 'per_page' are for pagination, with defaults and a max for 'per_page'. However, it doesn't clarify semantics like what 'page' numbering starts from, whether results are sorted, or if 'per_page' max is enforced server-side.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all custom columns and their available options'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_custom_columns' or 'get_metrics_options', which might have overlapping functionality in a custom columns/options context.

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_custom_columns' or 'get_metrics_options' from the sibling list. It mentions pagination parameters but doesn't explain when pagination is needed or what contexts require this specific tool over others.

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