polar_quickstartWalk users through a personalized 3-step Polar setup that adapts to their current state. Call this first when asked how to connect Polar.
Personalized 3-step setup walkthrough for the human user. Adapts to current state (env vars set? token present? what's next?). Call this first when the user asks 'how do I connect Polar?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.4Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it adapts to current state (env vars, token presence) and produces a 3-step walkthrough aimed at the human user rather than returning raw data.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and then the trigger condition. No filler, every clause carries information.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter walkthrough tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, audience, adaptive behavior, and invocation timing. The only omission is any hint that output can be markdown or json, which the schema supplies.
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% and the only parameter (response_format, enum markdown/json with a markdown default) is never mentioned in the description. The name is self-explanatory, but by the stated rule the description should compensate for the zero coverage and does not.
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 deliverable: a personalized 3-step setup walkthrough for the human user, with an adaptive aspect. This is clearly distinct from data-listing siblings, though it never explicitly names the closest alternatives (polar_onboarding, polar_connection_status) to sharpen differentiation.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first when the user asks how do I connect Polar?'. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, but the trigger condition is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.