Zoom MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns ('hierarchy and aliases') and its read-only nature is implied by 'Get', but it lacks details on potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and examples. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bullet-point style for examples enhances readability without wasting space.

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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and provides examples, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like response format or constraints to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output and usage. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get all Zoom sites/locations') and resources ('sites/locations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it shows 'hierarchy and aliases' rather than room details or location resolution. It explicitly answers questions like 'What locations do we have?' which reinforces its distinct role.

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 THIS to understand available locations before using location-specific queries') and includes alternative scenarios ('Perfect for: ...') that clarify its application. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on site overview rather than specific details or resolution tasks.

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