Mental Health 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. The description 'Assistente de apoio emocional' gives no insight into the tool's behavior: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what kind of response to expect, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a complete lack of 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 extremely concise—a single Portuguese phrase—but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is one phrase), it fails to convey necessary information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here, the description is too sparse to be helpful.

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 (a mental health tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the parameter means. For a tool that could involve sensitive emotional interactions, this lack of context is particularly problematic and fails to meet minimum viability.

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, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the 'message' parameter. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what the 'message' should contain (e.g., 'a user's emotional query', 'a description of feelings'), its format, or examples. With low schema coverage and no compensation from the description, parameters remain entirely undocumented.

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 'Assistente de apoio emocional' (Emotional support assistant) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'mental_health_helper' in Portuguese. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'provides emotional support responses', 'analyzes emotional state', 'offers coping strategies') or what resource it operates on. While it hints at the domain (emotional support), the purpose remains vague and lacks a clear verb+resource combination.

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. It doesn't specify the context (e.g., 'when a user expresses emotional distress', 'for general mental health queries'), mention any prerequisites, or differentiate it from alternatives (though there are no sibling tools, it still fails to define its scope). Without any usage context, the agent has no basis for deciding when to invoke this tool.

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