mcp_gpio_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some behavior: 'watched' triggers a webhook and falls back to logging when notifications.webhook is unset, and 'remove' implies a destructive mode. It omits permissions required, whether reconfiguring resets existing pin state, and reversibility of a remove.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact parameter reference. It is one long sentence, but nearly every clause carries information; only the trailing webhook parenthetical is slightly heavy.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most parameters but skips name and never addresses the risks of the destructive 'remove' type or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates valid values for type, init, pullup, and documents max, reversed, and watched with their applicability constraints. It leaves agent, gpio, and name undocumented, but the two required params are at least implied by 'on `agent` by number'.

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?

States a specific verb (configure) plus resource (GPIO pin) and target (agent), so it is clearly distinct from gpio_read, gpio_write, and gpio_scan. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 parentheticals 'input only', 'output only', and 'input/output only' give implied usage rules per parameter, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over gpio_write or gpio_read, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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