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 effectively adds valuable context: it explains authentication (API key or env var), pagination behavior (cursor parameter), credit usage (1 credit per swipe returned), and the return structure (dictionary with data, pagination, and credit info). This covers key operational aspects beyond basic input/output.

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 appropriately sized. It uses clear sections (Args, Returns, Credit Usage) with bullet-like formatting, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value—no redundant or vague statements. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then details parameters and behavior efficiently.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of covering essentials: purpose, parameters, return format, and credit usage. It's nearly complete, though it could slightly improve by explicitly mentioning error cases or rate limits. Given the context, it provides strong guidance for an agent.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 5 parameters. It explains each parameter's purpose, optionality, valid values (e.g., platform options, limit range), defaults, and environmental alternatives (API key). This adds significant meaning 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 tool's purpose: 'Get swipes from your swipe file.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('swipes'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_swipe' (singular) or 'get_collection_items', which might have overlapping functionality.

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_swipe' (singular) or 'get_collection_items', nor does it explain prerequisites like authentication requirements beyond the API key note. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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