SwipeBuilder MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies authentication options (API key or env var), pagination behavior, credit usage ('No credits consumed'), and return format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only 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) and efficiently communicates necessary information. However, the opening sentence could be more front-loaded with key differentiators, and some redundancy exists between the title-like opening and the detailed parameter explanations.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, all parameters, return format, and credit usage. It could be more complete by explicitly stating this is a read operation and mentioning error cases, but overall it's substantially complete given the 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently by explaining all 4 parameters with clear semantics: api_key (optional with env var fallback), parent_id (filtering options with 'root' and 'None' semantics), limit (range and default), and cursor (pagination purpose). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('your collections (folders)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_collection' (singular) or 'get_collection_items', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 some implied usage context through parameter explanations (e.g., filtering by parent_id, pagination), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_collection' or 'get_collection_items'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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