Citizen Deployment MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The mention of 'current deployment status and configuration' adds some context, but key operational details are missing for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 ('Get detailed information about a specific app') and adds specifics ('including current deployment status and configuration') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks completeness in usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain return values or operational context, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 'app_name' documented as 'Application name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific app', specifying it includes 'current deployment status and configuration'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_apps' (which lists apps) and 'get_deployment_status' (which focuses only on status). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'get_instructions', so it's not a perfect 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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_app_info' over 'list_apps' (for listing vs. detailed info) or 'get_deployment_status' (for status-only vs. comprehensive details). There's also no mention of prerequisites like authentication, which is implied by sibling tools like 'authenticate' and 'check_auth_status'.

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