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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions, rate limits, or pagination. The description adds some context by specifying the type filter, but lacks details on response format or potential errors.

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 guidance in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance considerations, which are partially mitigated by the output schema.

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?

There is 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but the description doesn't mention the 'debug' parameter at all. However, since there are 0 required parameters and the tool likely functions without inputs, the baseline is high. The description compensates by clarifying the resource scope, but doesn't explain parameter usage.

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 projects'), specifying they are 'categories with type "project"'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_categories' by focusing specifically on projects, not all categories.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('when you need project list for organization or project selection') and provides an alternative for detailed analysis ('use get_project_overview(project_id)'), clearly differentiating from the sibling tool 'get_project_overview'.

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