Warteg Online 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. It discloses the return format ('List of available restrictions grouped by category'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal but adequate disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic use. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on authentication or error cases, but the gaps are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial here). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

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: 'Get all available dietary restrictions (pantangan) that can be set.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('dietary restrictions'), and the parenthetical 'pantangan' adds helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_restrictions' or 'update_restrictions', which would require a 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 sibling tools like 'get_my_restrictions' (which likely retrieves user-specific restrictions) or 'update_restrictions' (which modifies them), leaving the agent to infer usage context. This lack of explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations limits its utility.

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