mcp_registry_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals cost, data source (TensorFeed daily capture), and non-destructive read behavior. However, it omits rate limits, maximum window, or request constraints.

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?

Three sentences efficiently cover purpose, output details, and cost. Front-loaded and no redundant information, though minor structure improvement possible.

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?

The description explains what the series contains and its data source, but lacks output format details (e.g., sorting, default window limits) which would be helpful given no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the two 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 clearly states the tool returns a multi-day series of MCP server registry growth and churn, specifying per-day totals, active counts, and added/removed counts. It distinguishes from the sibling 'mcp_registry_snapshot' by focusing on trends over time.

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 context for when to use (historical trend analysis) and notes a cost of 1 credit, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or give when-not-to-use guidance. The implication of snapshot vs series is present but not explicit.

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