sweeppea_connect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose an important constraint: an active Sweeppea subscription and API key are required. It also describes what the call yields (endpoint, headers, setup guides), implying a read-only informational operation, though it says nothing about error behavior or whether repeated calls differ.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outputs before the setup/platform detail. The "116 tools across 21 categories" clause is mildly promotional padding but still orientation-relevant; otherwise every sentence contributes.

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?

For a one-optional-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned, who may call it, and which platforms are supported. Nothing essential is missing, though it could note whether the response varies by platform or advertises any rate limits.

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 single optional parameter has 100% schema description coverage with an explicit enum, so the schema already does the work. The description adds only light meaning by listing platforms (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, other MCP clients), which maps to the parameter but does not extend it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns connection details and configuration instructions for the Sweeppea MCP Server") and then enumerates the concrete outputs (endpoint URL, auth headers, per-platform setup guides). There are no siblings to disambiguate against, and an agent can immediately tell what this tool produces.

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?

It states when to use it ("Use this tool to obtain the endpoint URL, required authentication headers, and platform-specific setup guides") and adds a prerequisite (active Sweeppea subscription and API key). No alternatives are named, but none exist in the sibling list, so this is clear context without exclusions.

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