syndicate-links-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses pagination behavior ('pass the returned cursor to fetch subsequent pages'), response structure ('{ data: Program[], cursor: string | null, hasMore: boolean }'), and returned fields ('commission rates, category, and status'). Does not mention rate limits or caching, but covers essential operational behavior well.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 defines purpose and return fields, sentence 2 provides usage guidelines with examples, sentence 3 explains pagination mechanics and response shape. Information is front-loaded and logically sequenced.

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?

Excellent completeness given constraints. No output schema exists, but description manually documents the exact response shape and pagination structure. With 100% input schema coverage and clear behavioral documentation, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke and handle responses correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by providing concrete query examples ('electronics', 'SaaS', 'fitness') that illustrate the semantic intent of the 'q' parameter beyond the schema's technical description. Reinforces cursor usage for pagination, adding context to the schema's mechanical definition.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Full-text search across affiliate program names and descriptions' with specific verb (search) and resource (affiliate programs). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_program_details (ID-based retrieval) and list_merchant_programs (merchant-scoped listing) by emphasizing full-text search capability across names and descriptions.

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?

Provides clear usage context with 'Use this to find programs by keyword' and concrete examples ('electronics', 'SaaS', 'fitness'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., 'don't use if you have a program ID') or named alternatives for direct lookups.

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