RSS3 MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieve' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if network config is unavailable. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with just two words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly brief for 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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details on what 'network config' includes (e.g., JSON structure, data fields), behavioral aspects, or usage context. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more completeness to guide effective 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add semantic details beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it's clear no inputs are required, and the description doesn't contradict this.

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 network config' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (network config), but it's vague about what 'network config' specifically entails (e.g., settings, topology, status). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like API-getNetworkActivities, which might retrieve activity logs instead of configuration.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for current settings, historical data, or compared to other network-related tools like API-getNodeByAddress. The description lacks context or exclusions.

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