Context Continuation 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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's rate-limited, or what format the status information returns. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information ('Get current session status and token usage'). Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple status-retrieval tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about when to use it, what the return format looks like, or behavioral constraints. For a status-checking tool, more information about the returned data structure would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. According to the scoring rules, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4, as there's nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current session status and token usage'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like context_start_session or context_end_session by focusing on status retrieval rather than session lifecycle management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from context_get_project_summary, which might also provide status information.

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 this tool is appropriate (e.g., during active sessions, for monitoring usage) or when other tools like context_get_project_summary might be better suited. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative suggestions.

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