Leapfrog MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively lists the specific data fields returned (stealth tier, wait strategy, block history, consent selector, API endpoints, visit count), giving clear expectations of output. Could improve by clarifying if this reads from cache/database or makes network requests.

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?

Three efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action, followed by specific output fields, then parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place with high information density.

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 single-parameter inspection tool, the description adequately compensates for missing output schema by enumerating returned fields. Missing annotations are not the description's fault, though explicit mention of read-only nature would improve completeness.

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 100% with the 'domain' parameter fully documented in schema as 'Omit to list all'. Description adds valuable semantic reinforcement ('Pass no domain to list all known domains'), clarifying the dual behavior of listing all domains vs inspecting one.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('what Leapfrog has learned about a website'). Lists specific attributes returned (stealth tier, wait strategy, block history, etc.), distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like 'navigate' or 'extract'.

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?

Provides specific guidance for the optional parameter ('Pass no domain to list all known domains'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when to inspect learned knowledge vs performing fresh navigation/inspection with other tools).

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