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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using Steady's web form (not an official API), which hints at potential reliability or rate limit issues, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens on submission (e.g., confirmation, side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists supported fields in a single sentence. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from field descriptions.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose and parameters well via the schema, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, it should provide more context on how the tool behaves in practice.

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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing supported fields (previous work, next work, blockers, mood) but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format details for 'team' or 'date'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Submit today's Steady check-in') and resource ('for ONE team'), specifying it's for a single team rather than multiple. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it uses Steady's web form (not an official API), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from steady_login or steady_set_cookies which might be related to authentication. The purpose is specific but could better contrast with 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 implies usage for submitting daily check-ins and mentions it's for one team, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like steady_list_teams or steady_login. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication first) or exclusions (e.g., not for historical dates beyond today). Usage is contextually implied but lacks clear directives.

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