MCP Hub

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clarifies which services can be queried (postgrest, gotrue, etc.), but omits critical behavioral details: return format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'detailed status' specifically includes (latency, uptime, error rates?).

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?

Single efficient sentence with information front-loaded. The parenthetical service list is well-placed. '[UNIFIED]' prefix is minor structural noise but doesn't significantly impact conciseness.

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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter read operation, but gaps remain: the 'site' parameter is unexplained, and without an output schema, the description should have indicated what status information is returned (JSON structure, health indicators, timestamps).

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates partially for the 'service' parameter by listing valid values (postgrest, gotrue, storage, postgres-meta), but completely fails to document the 'site' parameter (unclear if this is a project reference, URL, or region identifier).

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?

Clear specific verb ('Get') and resource ('service status'), with explicit examples of valid service values (postgrest, gotrue, storage, postgres-meta) that distinguish it from generic health check tools. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise but doesn't impede understanding.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'supabase_health_check' or 'check_all_projects_health'. No mention of prerequisites or contexts where this specific service-level check is preferred over project-level health checks.

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