MCP Analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or what data structure is returned (critical given no output schema exists).

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 single-sentence description is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundant words. However, given the lack of supporting information in annotations and schema, the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Despite having only one parameter, the tool lacks an output schema and parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what constitutes a 'card' in this domain, what data is returned, or how it relates to the broader reporting workflow, leaving significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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 0% and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain what 'processing_id' represents, its format, or how to obtain it. The phrase 'from a report' weakly implies the parameter relates to report identification but provides no actionable semantics for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('individual card data from a report'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reports_view' (which likely retrieves full report metadata) by specifying 'card data' and 'for rendering,' suggesting granular visualization data rather than report overview.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'reports_view' or 'datasets_read'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a processing_id from another tool) or conditions where this tool should be avoided.

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