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 this stores cookies locally for authentication purposes, which implies persistence and sharing across tools. However, it doesn't mention security implications, storage duration, or whether this overwrites existing cookies. The behavioral context is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose and benefit, the second specifies requirements. There's zero waste or redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (authentication storage with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter requirements. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like security or persistence details to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the required cookie types, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or validation details. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 ('Store Steady cookies locally') and the resource ('Cookie header value'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like steady_login (which likely obtains cookies) and steady_list_teams (which uses them). It explicitly mentions the purpose of enabling authentication for other tools.

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: to store authentication cookies for other tools. It specifies required cookie types ('at least remember_user_token and/or _sthr_session'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (like whether steady_login should be used first).

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