SEQ MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves detailed information but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses log data.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for 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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, output details, or parameter nuances, which are essential for a tool that interacts with log events. This leaves the agent under-informed for 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 description mentions retrieving a 'specific log event' by ID, which aligns with the single 'eventId' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details, and the description doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond the basic mapping, such as ID format or constraints.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific log event'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'analyze_logs', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_events' or 'list_signals'. It implies usage for retrieving a single event by ID but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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