Leapfrog MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses: specific sites visited, operation duration (60-90s), side effects (state stored in domain knowledge), and prerequisite validation. Missing only error conditions and return value structure.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: action definition, problem context, duration/outcome, state management, and prerequisites. Logical flow from why to how to what is needed. No redundancy.

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?

Comprehensive for a stateful 60-90 second operation despite no output schema. Covers mechanism, duration, anti-bot rationale, and session prerequisites. Only gap is explicit error handling (what happens if session invalid or already warmed).

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 clear description 'Session ID (must be a profile-based session)'. Tool description reinforces this requirement ('Must pass a sessionId of an existing session with a profile') but does not add significant new semantics like format examples or validation beyond the schema.

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 ('Warm up') + resource ('browser profile'), distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like profile_delete/profile_list. Explains mechanism (browsing Google/Wikipedia/YouTube) and domain-specific purpose (reCAPTCHA trust scores).

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?

Excellent contextual guidance: specifies when needed (fresh profiles scoring near 0 on reCAPTCHA v3), duration (60-90s), prerequisite (existing session with profile), and idempotency hint (stores state so it doesn't repeat). Lacks explicit comparison to manual navigation via 'navigate' tool.

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