atlas-social-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. While it mentions viewing posts with status and performance metrics, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or whether the data is real-time or cached. For a read operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly separating status and metrics). Every part earns its place, but minor improvements in clarity are possible.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving posts with status and metrics), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what data is returned but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output structure. It meets the bare minimum for a read operation but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain default behavior beyond the schema's 'Default: 10' or clarify format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'View recent posts published through Atlas Social with their status (published/scheduled/failed) and performance metrics.' It specifies the verb ('view'), resource ('recent posts'), and scope ('published through Atlas Social'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_analytics' or 'list_accounts' which might also retrieve post-related data.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_analytics' (which might provide deeper metrics) or 'post_now'/'schedule_post' (which are for creating posts), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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