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. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'Activity' entails (e.g., data format, scope). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient phrase ('Retrieve Activity by ID') that front-loads the core action without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 siblings with overlapping purposes, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'Activity' means, how it differs from federated or RSS activities, and what the return format is, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable here since there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 Activity by ID' clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Activity by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'API-getFederatedActivityById' or 'API-getRSSActivityByPath', which appear to retrieve similar resources, leaving ambiguity about what specific type of activity this tool handles.

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 siblings like 'API-getFederatedActivityById' and 'API-getRSSActivityByPath', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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