synter-mcp-server

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

The annotations include 'readOnlyHint: true', which already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by listing the metric types returned, but it does not disclose details like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides some value but not rich behavioral insights, warranting a score of 3.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It lists the metric types concisely and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse. This earns a score of 5 for being appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (a read-only query with three optional parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the metric types but does not detail the return format, aggregation, or error handling. With annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps, resulting in a score of 3.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (platform, campaign_id, date_range). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performance metrics (impressions, clicks, spend, conversions, ROAS) for campaigns.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('performance metrics'), and lists specific metric types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_daily_spend' or 'list_campaigns', which limits its score to 4 rather than 5.

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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'get_daily_spend' for spend-only metrics or 'list_campaigns' for campaign lists without metrics), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual direction results in a score of 2.

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