Invoker MCP Server

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying what information is returned (environments with variables, active status) and the tool's purpose in the workflow (to see environments before other actions). It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral insight.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clear usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted information, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose and usage. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it fits with siblings. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear description of returned information.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 ('List all environments with their variables') and resource ('environments'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning its role in showing available environments before using tools like 'invoker_switch_environment' or 'invoker_set_variable'. It goes beyond the title by specifying what information is included (variables, active status).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to see available environments before switching or setting variables'), providing clear context and distinguishing it from alternatives like 'invoker_switch_environment' or 'invoker_set_variable'. It effectively guides the agent on the tool's role in the workflow.

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