Invoker MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the description's 'create' action. The description adds useful context by specifying that the file is written to disk, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, file overwriting behavior, or format specifics beyond .ivk. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this provides moderate value.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and efficiently lists optional components. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential action and key inputs. However, it lacks details on the .ivk file format structure, potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting), or example usage, which could help in more complex scenarios. The annotations provide basic safety context, but some behavioral gaps remain.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description mentions key parameters (HTTP method, URL, headers, body, auth, scripts) but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 ('Create a new .ivk request file') and resource (the file), distinguishing it from sibling tools like invoker_read_request or invoker_send_request. It specifies the file format (.ivk) and key components to include, making the purpose 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 description implies usage for creating request files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoker_send_request (for executing requests) or invoker_read_request (for reading existing files). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the appropriate context.

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