Amazing Marvin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of alternatives adds some context, but key behavioral details are missing.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the complexity (creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage guidelines effectively. However, the omission of the 'debug' parameter and lack of behavioral details (e.g., error handling) prevent a perfect score, though the output schema may mitigate some gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for 5 parameters (title, project_id, category_id, due_date, note), including format for due_date and optional/required status. However, it omits the 'debug' parameter, leaving it undocumented. This partial coverage earns a 4 instead of a perfect score.

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: 'Create a new task in Amazing Marvin.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('task'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning alternatives for batch creation and project creation with tasks.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'For creating multiple tasks, use batch_create_tasks() instead. For creating a project with tasks, use create_project_with_tasks().' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, including exclusions.

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