Tendem MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation for polling task status, describes the status lifecycle (AWAITING_APPROVAL, COMPLETED), mentions potential delays ('may take hours'), and clarifies the return includes 'status and approval info if awaiting approval.' This covers essential aspects like operation type, timing, and output context, though it could add more on error handling or rate limits.

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 concise. It front-loads the purpose, follows with usage guidelines, and then details parameters and returns in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return value highlights, leveraging the output schema to avoid re-explaining return details. This covers all necessary aspects for effective agent use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'task_id: The Tendem task ID (UUID) to get.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose and format (UUID), which is crucial beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't detail validation rules or example values, leaving some gaps.

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 a Tendem task by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Tendem task'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_tasks' (which retrieves multiple tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_task_result' or 'get_all_task_results', which are also retrieval operations, leaving some 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: 'Use to poll task status. After create_task, wait for AWAITING_APPROVAL to see price. After approve_task, a human expert works on the task until COMPLETED (may take hours).' It clearly outlines the workflow context and timing, distinguishing it from alternatives like 'create_task' or 'approve_task' by focusing on status polling.

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