Leapfrog MCP

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It specifies 'all' (scope) and 'authentication' (type), but lacks details on return format, session scoping behavior, or whether these profiles persist across sessions.

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?

Extremely concise at five words in a single sentence. While efficient, this brevity comes at the cost of the sibling differentiation needed for proper tool selection in a multi-profile-tool environment.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description minimally explains the operation. However, it lacks critical context regarding how this differs from 'profile_list' and what constitutes a 'saved' profile in the session context.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline of 4 per evaluation rules. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameters, though it could have elaborated on what 'saved authentication profiles' implies for the empty parameter set.

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 action (List) and resource (saved authentication profiles), but fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'profile_list', which could cause selection errors when both are available.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'profile_list' or other profile-related tools, nor any prerequisites regarding session context or authentication state.

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