Leapfrog MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite workflow (traffic capture must precede export) but omits critical behavioral details: whether the export consumes/resets the traffic log, the output format (JSON vs YAML), file handling behavior, or error conditions when no traffic exists.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose; the second provides critical workflow guidance. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the most important information (what it does) before the how/when.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core workflow but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't clarify the return value format, pagination behavior for large specs, or side effects on the session state. Complete enough for basic usage but lacks depth for edge cases.

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 coverage is 67% (title and includeTracking are described; required parameter sessionId is not). The description adds no clarification for sessionId or semantic context for the other parameters, relying entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for medium coverage where the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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 specific output (OpenAPI v3 spec) and source material (observed API traffic) with precise verbs. It references the prerequisite navigation step, implicitly distinguishing this from static analysis tools like `api_discover`. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling export tools like `session_export`.

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 second sentence provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Navigate pages first to capture traffic, then export.' This clearly establishes the prerequisite (navigate) and sequencing required for successful use. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions.

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