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 aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no assets are found. This is a significant gap 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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Retrieve Node Assets', which efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted text. It's front-loaded and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (involving 'Assets') and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Node Assets' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied as the description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 Node Assets' clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Node Assets'), but it's vague about what 'Node Assets' specifically refers to. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'API-getNodeByAddress' or 'API-getNodeEventsByAddress', leaving ambiguity about the scope of assets being retrieved.

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 many sibling tools related to nodes (e.g., 'API-getNodeByAddress', 'API-getNodeEventsByAddress'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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