Slack 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves profile information but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 that an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), the description doesn't need to detail return values, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter coverage, the description provides only basic operational context, leaving aspects like error cases or performance characteristics unaddressed.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'user_id' by providing an example format ('e.g., "U01234567"'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. This compensates well for the lack of schema details, though it doesn't fully explain constraints or validation rules.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('profile information for a user'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'lookup_user_by_email', which appear to serve similar user-related functions, preventing a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools such as 'get_user_info', 'lookup_user_by_email', and 'get_user_presence' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's functionality or in what contexts it should be preferred, leaving usage ambiguous.

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