Tarot 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 action ('draw') but doesn't explain what 'draw' entails operationally—whether it's random selection, returns card details, includes interpretations, or has side effects like tracking draws. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns card data. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., card names, images, interpretations) or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent to guess about the output format and operational details.

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, fully documenting the 'count' parameter with its type, range, and requirement. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameter exists ('specified number'), so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter documentation.

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 action ('draw') and resource ('tarot cards'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'daily_card' or 'perform_reading', which might also involve drawing cards in different contexts.

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 like 'daily_card' (which might draw a single card automatically) or 'perform_reading' (which might involve drawing cards as part of a structured spread). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts.

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