Tarot MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a detailed interpretation' but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed' entails (e.g., format, length). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get a detailed interpretation of a tarot reading'. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 (interpreting tarot readings), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed interpretation' includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely returns rich textual analysis, more context is needed to guide effective 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'reading' documented as 'The reading object returned from perform_reading'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the object's structure or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's no extra value from the description.

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 as 'Get a detailed interpretation of a tarot reading' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('interpretation of a tarot reading'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_card_meaning' (single card) and 'perform_reading' (conducts reading) by focusing on interpreting an existing reading. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'daily_card' or 'draw_cards'), 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that 'reading' must come from 'perform_reading'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_card_meaning' for individual cards. Without such context, users might misuse it or overlook better options.

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