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. It states the tool returns something but doesn't describe what a 'resource reference' is, any side effects, error conditions, or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it could be more front-loaded with key details. However, it's efficient and clear in its brevity.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'resource reference' is, how it's used, or what the return value looks like. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'resourceId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for the resource ID. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool 'returns a resource reference that can be used by MCP clients,' which provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about what type of resource or what 'resource reference' entails. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'echo' or 'printEnv' but not clearly from 'getResourceLinks' which might be related. The purpose is vague rather than specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for internal MCP client use only or how it differs from 'getResourceLinks.' The description offers no usage instructions.

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