SwipeBuilder MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about credit usage ('No credits consumed') and API key handling via environment variables, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the key, or response structure. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a read operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Credit Usage), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and credit usage, but lacks output details (only mentions 'Dictionary with collection data or error message' vaguely) and doesn't integrate with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'collection_id' as 'The ID of the collection to retrieve' and 'api_key' with optionality and environment variable fallback. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details like ID structure.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a single collection by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_collections' (plural) or 'get_collection_items', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_collections' or 'get_collection_items'. It mentions the optionality of 'api_key' but doesn't explain tool selection criteria, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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