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 'Get all goals' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens with the 'debug' parameter. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan 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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but minimal. It lacks context on usage, behavior, and parameter meaning, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively despite the output schema handling return values.

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 with 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't mention any parameters. Since there are 0 parameters described, this meets the baseline of 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps but also doesn't add value 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?

The description 'Get all goals from Amazing Marvin' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('goals'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_projects' or 'get_tasks'. It specifies the source ('Amazing Marvin') but lacks detail about what 'all goals' entails.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_projects' and 'get_tasks', there's no indication of whether goals are distinct from or overlap with these other entities, or if this should be used for specific contexts like planning versus tracking.

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