RSS3 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 only states the action ('Retrieve') without details on permissions, rate limits, data format, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it omits critical operational traits needed for safe and effective use.

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, direct phrase ('Retrieve Account Activities') with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured for its length.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Account Activities' includes, the return format, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool in a complex ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper use, making this description inadequate for full 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description does not add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as no parameters exist to explain, and the schema adequately covers this aspect.

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 'Retrieve Account Activities' clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Account Activities'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Account Activities' entails (e.g., types, scope) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'API-getFederatedAccountActivities' or 'API-getNetworkActivities', leaving ambiguity about its unique role.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'API-batchGetAccountsActivities' and 'API-getFederatedAccountActivities', the description offers no context on differences (e.g., single vs. batch retrieval, account types). This absence of comparative or contextual advice limits effective tool selection.

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