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 some context: it mentions credit usage ('Credit Usage: 1 credit'), which is useful for cost awareness, and hints at authentication behavior (API key optional if env var set). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what 'swipe data' entails, leaving 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by organized sections for Args, Returns, and Credit Usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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. It covers the basic operation, parameters, and credit usage, but lacks details on return values (only 'Dictionary with swipe data or error message' is vague) and doesn't address potential errors or system limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'swipe_id' is explained as 'The ID of the swipe to retrieve', and 'api_key' is described with optionality and environment variable fallback. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format or constraints (e.g., 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 purpose: 'Get a single swipe by ID.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('swipe'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_swipes' (which likely retrieves multiple swipes), though the 'single' hint provides some distinction.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_swipes' or 'get_collection_items', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only usage hint is the optional 'api_key' parameter, which is insufficient for broader decision-making.

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