Kontomanager MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a context switch but doesn't clarify what 'active context' entails, whether this affects ongoing operations, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that likely changes server state, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the tool's function, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameter guidance adequately. However, it lacks details about what 'switching active context' means operationally, what the tool returns, or potential side effects. Given the likely state-changing nature, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by explaining that 'subscriber_id' values can be obtained via 'get_phone_numbers'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this guidance compensates well. However, it doesn't explain what a 'subscriber_id' represents or its format beyond the sibling tool reference.

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 action ('switches') and target resource ('active context to another phone number'), specifying it operates within the 'account group'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on context switching rather than data retrieval or settings management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'set_call_forwarding_rule' also changes settings).

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 when to use this tool: when needing to change the server's active phone number. It explicitly references an alternative tool ('get_phone_numbers') to obtain required parameter values, offering practical guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or compare with other potential alternatives beyond parameter acquisition.

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