atlas-social-mcp

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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior, warranting a low score.

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 front-loads the purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids waste but could be slightly more structured to include usage context. This earns a 4 for being appropriately concise.

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 of analytics tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on data aggregation, platform-specific nuances, or return values, making it inadequate for full agent understanding. A score of 2 reflects this significant gap.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'days'. The baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, as the description doesn't compensate with additional syntax or format 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 social media performance analytics') and resources ('impressions, reach, likes, comments, shares across all connected platforms'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recent_posts' by focusing on analytics rather than content retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 like 'get_recent_posts' or 'list_accounts'. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. This minimal guidance scores a 2.

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