attest-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'Fetch'), returns specific data ('approval record from Attest'), handles errors ('invalid or unknown challenge IDs will surface as an MCP error response'), and clarifies it doesn't poll. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving some 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and usage context, the second covers returns and error handling. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains purpose, usage context, return values, and error behavior. The main gap is lack of output format details (what fields the 'approval record' contains), but given the tool's simplicity and clear annotations-like disclosure in the description, it's largely adequate.

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% (the single parameter 'challenge_id' is fully described in the schema as 'Approval challenge ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce the parameter's purpose in context ('by challenge_id').

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 ('Fetch the current status'), resource ('one approval challenge by challenge_id'), and scope ('one-time status check'), distinguishing it from siblings like request_approval (initiates) or list_tasks (lists multiple). It explicitly mentions what it returns ('approval record from Attest') and error handling for invalid IDs.

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 ('after request_approval when you need a one-time status check') and when not to use it ('does not perform repeated polling by itself'), clearly differentiating it from potential polling alternatives. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like grant_approval or deny_approval by focusing on status checking rather than decision-making.

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