eco-mcp-app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively by disclosing key behavioral traits: it displays server status inline, renders as a visual widget in Claude Desktop via MCP Apps spec, and falls back to plain-text in other hosts. This covers presentation behavior and compatibility, though it lacks details on error handling or refresh rates.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediately detailing the specific data retrieved and rendering behavior. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and how it behaves in different hosts. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning potential errors or data freshness, but it covers most needed context effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by explaining that no parameters are needed to retrieve the server status, implicitly confirming the empty schema, which justifies a score above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Show the current state') and resource ('Eco via Sirens game server'), listing exactly what information is retrieved (online players, meteor countdown, world stats, economy, version). It distinguishes this tool's purpose with precision, especially noting the visual widget rendering capability.

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 implies usage context by mentioning it renders as a visual widget in Claude Desktop and falls back to plain-text elsewhere, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, this is less critical, but no explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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