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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not specify permissions, rate limits, or output format details. The description adds some context about filtering for urgency, but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits like error handling or data freshness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant or wasteful—making it efficiently structured 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 tool's low complexity (simple read operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and sibling differentiation adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like permissions or output examples to reach a score of 5.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (debug) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation. The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic information beyond the schema. However, with 0 parameters relevant to the core functionality (debug is optional and likely for troubleshooting), the baseline is 4 as the tool's purpose doesn't rely on documented inputs.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'overdue and due tasks only (past due date)', making the purpose specific and actionable. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling get_daily_productivity_overview by contrasting 'urgent/overdue items' with 'complete daily view including today's tasks', ensuring clear differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use when you need to focus specifically on urgent/overdue items') and when not to use it, naming a specific alternative ('For complete daily view including today's tasks, use get_daily_productivity_overview()'). This covers both inclusion and exclusion criteria effectively.

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