Steady MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists teams with name and id from a specific page, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool that likely interacts with a system.

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 that front-loads the purpose and includes key details like the source and default behavior. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on output format or error scenarios, which could be helpful for an agent invoking the tool without an 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 the schema already documents the 'date' parameter fully. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'default: today', which is already in the schema description. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('List available teams') and the resource ('teams (name + id)'), with additional context about the source ('from the check-in edit page for a date'). It distinguishes from siblings like steady_login or steady_submit_checkin by focusing on listing rather than authentication or submission.

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 clear context for usage ('from the check-in edit page for a date'), including a default behavior ('default: today'), which helps guide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as steady_ping for health checks.

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