Invoker MCP Server

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns parsed request details (method, URL, headers, etc.), which clarifies the output behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., file not found) or parsing limitations, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 usage guidance. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function and when to use it, with no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage context, and return content. However, it lacks details on error handling or output structure (though the absence of an output schema makes this less critical), leaving a minor gap.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'file_path' clearly documented as 'Path to the .ivk file'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Read and parse an .ivk file') and the resource ('.ivk file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'invoker_send_request' (which sends requests) and 'invoker_create_request' (which creates them). It explicitly mentions what the tool returns (parsed request details), 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to inspect what a request does before sending it'), directly contrasting it with 'invoker_send_request' (which sends the request). This helps the agent choose between reading/parsing versus executing actions, offering clear alternatives.

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