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 key behaviors: the server enforces scope subsetting, and it implies a mutation operation (creating a child credential). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which would be beneficial for a credential management tool.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and context, and the second provides critical behavioral and alternative guidance. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 credential delegation and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, it omits details on return values (e.g., what the child credential looks like) and potential side effects, which would enhance completeness for this type of tool.

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, providing baseline documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'child_scope' as a 'subset of the parent' and 'ttl_seconds' as 'Child token lifetime,' but this mostly reiterates schema info. It doesn't explain format specifics (e.g., JWT structure) beyond the schema.

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 ('Create a narrower child credential from an existing parent credential') and the resource involved. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'issue_credential' by explaining when to use each, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 handing work to a sub-agent or isolated step that should receive only a subset of the parent scope') and when not to ('if you need the original root authority, use issue_credential instead'). It names the alternative tool, offering clear context for selection.

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