IT Glue MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true). The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses the 'Password Access' permission requirement for viewing passwords, which is critical behavioral information not covered by annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical note and parameter/return details. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly into the flow.

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 moderate complexity (retrieval with permission constraints), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, permission requirements, parameters, and returns. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., what fields beyond username/URL/password are included).

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 100%, providing full documentation of all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the 'show_password' parameter's effect ('include the actual password value') and the 'response_format' options, but these are already detailed in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 ('Get a single password by ID') and resource ('password'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'itglue_list_passwords' (which lists multiple) and 'itglue_create_password' (which creates). The optional inclusion of the password value adds further specificity.

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 clear context for usage: it's for retrieving a single password by ID, with an explicit note about the 'Password Access' permission requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'itglue_list_passwords' for browsing or 'itglue_check_password_access' for permission verification.

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