Invoker MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a scanning/discovery operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what file types are scanned (.ivk and .md), what is returned (file tree with counts), and the tool's purpose (discovery), without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and purpose in two concise sentences, with no wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by defining the operation and its usage context efficiently.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is mostly complete by covering purpose, usage, and behavioral details. However, it lacks information on output structure (e.g., format of the 'file tree with counts'), which would be helpful since there is no output schema.

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%, with the parameter 'folder_path' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Scan a folder for .ivk request files and .md documentation files') and resource ('collection folder'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'invoker_read_request' or 'invoker_send_request' which operate on individual requests rather than scanning folders for collections.

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 ('Use this to discover what requests and docs exist in a collection'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'invoker_list_environments' for environment discovery instead.

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