vynly-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 mentions the tool reads a public feed, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and succinctly describes optional parameters. Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it easy to parse 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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions. For a read tool with minimal structured data, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'before' is an epoch ms for pagination and 'limit' ranges from 1-50, clarifying their purposes and constraints. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail default values or error handling.

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 ('Read') and resource ('public Vynly feed'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a read operation from sibling tools that involve posting (vynly_post_image, vynly_post_spark) or searching (vynly_search). However, it doesn't specify what content the feed contains or its format, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage for accessing the public feed, with optional parameters for pagination. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vynly_search, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks detailed guidance on tool selection.

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