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' and marks it as 'Beta', but doesn't explain what 'Beta' implies (e.g., rate limits, stability, or experimental status), nor does it detail authentication needs, response format, or potential side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no 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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to scan, and the 'Beta' tag is concise yet informative, contributing to its brevity and clarity.

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 a simple input schema with 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'federated network activities' entail, the return format, error handling, or the implications of 'Beta', leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'federated network activities', which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'API-getNetworkActivities' or 'API-getFederatedPlatformActivities', leaving the specific scope of 'federated network activities' vague compared to alternatives.

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. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'API-getNetworkActivities' or 'API-getFederatedAccountActivities' for comparison, leaving usage unclear.

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