Steady MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs authentication ('Log into Steady'), stores cookies locally, and reads credentials from multiple sources. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., invalidating previous sessions), error behaviors, or rate limits. The description adds useful context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and outcome, the second explains credential sources. Every phrase adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the main functionality.

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 authentication purpose with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the login flow, cookie storage, and credential sources. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. The coverage is good but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, documenting that 'email' is an optional override. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the default credential sources (STEADY_EMAIL env var, etc.), which helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema's technical specification. For a single parameter tool, this provides good supplemental information.

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 ('Log into Steady'), the mechanism ('using the email+password flow'), and the outcome ('store fresh cookies locally for other tools to use'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like steady_ping or steady_list_teams by focusing on authentication rather than data retrieval or status checking.

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 about when to use this tool ('for other tools to use') and mentions credential sources (env vars, macOS Keychain), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like steady_set_cookies for cookie management. The guidance is practical but lacks explicit exclusions.

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