Invoker MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint: false) with open-world behavior (openWorldHint: true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses variable resolution from active environment, pre/post script execution, and comprehensive response details (status, headers, body, test results, console logs), which are not captured in annotations.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with key behavioral details. Every element (variable resolution, scripting, response components) earns its place 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?

Given the tool's complexity (HTTP execution with scripting and variable resolution), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides substantial context about behavior and return values. However, it doesn't address potential side effects, error handling, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a mutable, open-world tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning the file_path vs. inline params dichotomy but not providing additional syntax, format, or constraint details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Execute an HTTP request') and resources ('.ivk file or inline params'), distinguishing it from siblings like invoker_create_request (creation) or invoker_read_request (reading). It specifies the verb+resource combination precisely.

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 usage (executing HTTP requests with environment variable resolution and scripting), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage through functional description rather than comparative guidance.

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