Tripletex MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search purpose and example activity types, but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what format results return, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose with helpful examples, and the second sentence provides the usage context. There's zero wasted text and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a search tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks important behavioral information. It explains the 'why' (finding IDs for logging hours) but doesn't address result format, pagination behavior, or operational constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 searches for activities and provides the purpose (to find activity IDs for logging hours). It uses specific verbs ('search for', 'find') and identifies the resource ('activities'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_recent_activities' or 'search_projects'.

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 context ('to find activity IDs for logging hours'), suggesting this tool is preparatory for logging operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_recent_activities' or other search tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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