Invoker MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the switch affects 'All subsequent variable resolution,' implying a state change with downstream effects. This clarifies behavioral traits not covered by annotations, such as the tool's impact on future operations, though it doesn't detail error handling or validation specifics.

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 and concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the tool's action and its immediate effect. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (state-changing with one parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, usage, and behavioral impact. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., invalid environment names) or confirmation of success, which could enhance completeness for a mutation tool without 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'environment' parameter documented as accepting a name or numeric index. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond this, only restating that it's 'by name or index.' Since the schema already covers this thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional insights like examples or constraints.

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 ('Switch the active environment') and the resource ('environment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'invoker_list_environments' (which lists) or 'invoker_add_environment' (which adds). It explicitly mentions the effect on variable resolution, making the purpose distinct and comprehensive.

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 ('All subsequent variable resolution will use the new environment's values'), indicating it's for changing the active environment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using 'invoker_list_environments' to check available environments first, which prevents a perfect score.

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