Standard Metrics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination defaults and limits, which is helpful, but doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the formatting with 'Args:' header could be more integrated with the main description text.

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 list operation with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining the parameters but leaves significant gaps in behavioral context. It doesn't describe the response format, error conditions, or how this tool relates to siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'name' for filtering, 'page' for pagination with default, and 'per_page' with both default and maximum values. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail about name filtering behavior.

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 ('all information requests associated with the firm'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_information_reports' or other list tools, which would be needed for 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 'list_information_reports' or 'search_companies'. It mentions filtering by name but doesn't explain when that's appropriate or what other filtering options might exist through sibling tools.

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