EpicMe MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'long running operation with progress updates', which implies asynchronous behavior and potential delays, but doesn't specify timeout handling, cancellation options, or what 'progress updates' entail. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (long-running operation with progress updates), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the operation demonstrates, what progress updates look like, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with behavioral implications, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (duration and steps). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is in 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 states the tool 'demonstrates a long running operation with progress updates', which provides a vague purpose. It specifies the verb 'demonstrates' and resource 'operation', but lacks specificity about what the operation actually does or its domain context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'add', 'echo', or 'sampleLLM' which have different functions.

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. It doesn't mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various utilities, there's no indication whether this is for testing, simulation, or actual processing, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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