Zero Network MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might involve sensitive security data.

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 lists key components without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get') and directly enumerates the security model aspects, 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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what security information is retrieved, but lacks details on behavioral traits like access requirements or output structure, which could be important for a security-related tool.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the content retrieved (e.g., attack mitigations, Trinity Validators), which helps the agent understand the output semantics beyond what the empty schema provides.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Zero security model'), listing key components like attack mitigations and vault contract security. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zero_validator_info' or 'zero_overview', which might overlap in security-related content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists what the tool retrieves but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'zero_validator_info' or 'zero_overview', leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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