RSS3 MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions the tool is in 'Beta', hinting at potential instability. It fails to disclose critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It's appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and in Beta, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for safe and effective agent use.

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 param info, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness, 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 states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('Federated Account Activities'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'API-getFederatedActivityById' or 'API-getFederatedNetworkActivities', leaving ambiguity about scope and specificity.

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 such as 'API-getFederatedActivityById' for specific activities or 'API-getFederatedNetworkActivities' for network-level data. The description lacks context for selection among similar tools.

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