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 states it 'gets' labels, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any constraints like permissions, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 simplicity (a read operation with one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and siblings that retrieve similar metadata, it lacks context about what labels are and when to use them, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance.

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 one parameter ('debug') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema doesn't explain its purpose. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, but since there's only one optional parameter and it's likely for debugging, the lack of parameter info is less critical. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, adjusted slightly down as it doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'debug' parameter.

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 resource ('all labels from Amazing Marvin'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_categories' or 'get_goals', which likely retrieve similar metadata types, so it's not fully specific about what distinguishes labels from other entities.

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 siblings like 'get_categories' and 'get_goals', there's no indication of when labels are needed or what context they apply to, leaving usage entirely implied from the name alone.

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