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 full burden. It mentions pagination behavior (defaults and max), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a list operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. The front-loading of the main purpose is effective.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It documents parameters well but lacks information about return format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. For a list operation of this complexity, it's minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively by listing all 7 parameters with clear explanations of their purpose. Each parameter gets a brief semantic description that goes beyond the schema's titles, such as explaining date filters are inclusive and pagination defaults. The only minor gap is not explaining the enum values for parse_state and source.

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 ('List') and resource ('documents associated with your firm'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_information_reports' or 'list_notes' that might also list document-like resources, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With sibling tools like 'list_information_reports' and 'list_information_requests' that might overlap with document listing, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred.

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