Harmonic MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the prerequisite (subscription requirement with 404 error if not met), clarifies what 'net new' means with examples, specifies response sizes (~27KB per result), and outlines the workflow with the sibling tool 'harmonic_clear_saved_search_net_new'. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 well-structured with clear sections (prerequisite, explanation of 'net new', input, response sizes, workflow, use cases), using bold headers for emphasis. Every sentence adds value—no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys necessary details without verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (incremental results with prerequisites and workflow), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (prerequisite, response sizes, workflow), and contextualizes parameters. Although there is no output schema, the description provides enough context (e.g., response sizes, use cases) for effective agent use. Annotations further enhance completeness by indicating safety and idempotency.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by grouping parameters under an 'Input:' section and providing a brief explanation of 'new_results_since' (e.g., 'Optional UTC datetime'), but it doesn't introduce new semantics beyond the schema. However, it compensates by explaining the tool's purpose and workflow, which contextualizes parameter usage effectively.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get only NEW results from a saved search since your last check. This is the incremental/delta endpoint for monitoring deal flow.' It uses specific verbs ('get', 'monitoring') and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'harmonic_get_saved_search_results' by emphasizing the 'net new' incremental nature. The title reinforces this distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is the incremental/delta endpoint for monitoring deal flow.' It includes a prerequisite ('You must subscribe to the saved search via Harmonic web UI first'), workflow steps, and specific use cases (e.g., 'Daily deal flow monitoring for investors'). It clearly differentiates from regular search results tools by focusing on new matches since subscription.

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