attest-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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: returns a 'small revocation status object' and specifies that 'network or API failures are returned as MCP errors.' This covers key behavioral aspects like return format and error handling, though it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or caching behavior.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence establishes purpose and usage guidelines, while the second covers behavioral aspects. Every phrase adds value, and the information is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral aspects (return format and error handling), and distinguishes from sibling tools. The main gap is the lack of output schema details, but the description compensates by describing the return as a 'small revocation status object.'

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'jti' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (which defines it as 'Credential unique ID'). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('check whether...is currently revoked'), identifies the resource ('credential JTI'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying it's for 'one-time revocation lookup' rather than verification or other credential operations. It explicitly contrasts with signature/expiry/task history verification.

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 ('when you already know the credential ID' and 'for a one-time revocation lookup') and when not to use it ('does not verify signature, expiry, or task history'). It clearly differentiates this from verification and other credential management operations among the sibling tools.

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