synter-mcp-server

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'List' (a read operation). The description adds value by specifying the scope ('across connected ad platforms') and the returned fields, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether it requires authentication beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by key return details, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (listing campaigns with filters), the absence of an output schema, and annotations covering only read-only status, the description is somewhat incomplete. It specifies returned fields but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure, pagination), error handling, or dependencies on connected platforms. However, it adequately covers the basic functionality for a read operation.

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, status, limit). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'platform' filtering works with multiple connections or default behaviors for unspecified parameters. This meets the baseline score of 3 given high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('campaigns across connected ad platforms'), and specifies what information is returned ('campaign name, status, budget, and performance metrics'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_ad_accounts' or 'get_performance', which also involve listing or retrieving data.

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 when to choose 'list_campaigns' over sibling tools like 'get_performance' (which might return similar metrics) or 'list_ad_accounts' (which lists accounts rather than campaigns). There's also no information about prerequisites, such as needing connected ad platforms.

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