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 tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON structure, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency beyond the basic purpose.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource ('tarot card') and scope ('specific'), resulting in zero waste.

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 complexity (a lookup tool with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'detailed information' includes, potential error cases (e.g., invalid card names), or the return structure, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic parameter input.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'cardName' fully documented in the schema (including examples like 'The Fool'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain formatting constraints, case sensitivity, or how card names are standardized. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific tarot card'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_cards' (which lists all cards) and 'search_cards' (which searches multiple cards). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what constitutes 'detailed information' (e.g., symbolism, interpretation, imagery), leaving some ambiguity compared to a perfect 5.

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 'get_card_meaning' over 'search_cards' (e.g., for a known card name vs. keyword search) or 'list_all_cards' (e.g., for browsing vs. specific lookup), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an exact card name. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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