Averra Extract MCP

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the plaintext key is returned only once and cannot be retrieved later, explains that the key inherits plan/limits automatically from the subscription, and includes error handling details (401, 500). These are not covered by the annotations, which only indicate it's a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld 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 (description, important notes, args, returns, examples, error handling), front-loaded with critical information, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates necessary details in an organized manner.

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 complexity (creating a sensitive API key), the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, critical behavioral warnings, parameter usage, return format details (compensating for no output schema), usage examples, and error handling. This provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'response_format', the schema already fully documents it. The description adds minimal value by briefly mentioning the parameter in the 'Args' section but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. However, since there's only one parameter and the schema is comprehensive, a score above baseline is warranted.

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 specific action ('Create a new Extract API key') and resource ('for the authenticated account'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'averra_list_api_keys' and 'averra_revoke_api_key'. It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'User wants to create a new API key for a different integration' and 'Rotating keys'), when not to use it ('Don't use without user confirmation'), and mentions alternatives implicitly through sibling tool names. It clearly defines the context and exclusions.

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