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: credit usage (1 credit per swipe returned), pagination behavior (via cursor), and optional API key handling. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the API key note, leaving gaps for a mutation-free 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition—making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description does a decent job covering parameters and basic behavior (pagination, credit usage). However, it lacks details on error handling, response structure beyond 'dictionary', and sibling tool differentiation, making it incomplete for optimal agent use in this context.

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 effectively explains all four parameters: collection_id (ID of the collection), api_key (optional with env var fallback), limit (range and default), and cursor (pagination). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., collection_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 'items (swipes) in a collection', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_swipe or get_swipes, which might also retrieve swipe items, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific collection-focused retrieval.

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_swipe or get_swipes. It mentions the tool's function but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a collection ID) or comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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