EpicMe MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Echoes back the input' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it lacks details on output format, error handling, or any constraints like rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what 'echoes back' means in practice) or provide context for use among siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more detail is needed to fully inform an agent.

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 'message' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Echoes back the input' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('echoes') and resource ('input'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'printEnv' or 'sampleLLM' that might also output data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 alternatives. With siblings like 'printEnv' (prints environment variables) and 'sampleLLM' (likely generates text), there's no indication of when 'echo' is appropriate, such as for testing or simple output, leaving usage unclear.

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