morpheus-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses scoping behavior (lifetime stats across all plans vs scoped) and implies read-only analytics, but omits performance characteristics, rate limits, or computational cost of aggregating lifetime data. Adequate but missing operational safety details.

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 with the core function, followed by default behavior, use case justification, and parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. The Args section efficiently documents the single parameter without boilerplate.

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 this is a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema (which absolves the description from detailing return values), the description is complete. It covers domain context (gates, plans), scoping behavior, and purpose. Minor gap in not defining 'gates' for unfamiliar agents, but sufficient given the sibling tool namespace.

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% (title only), so the description compensates by explaining plan_id is 'Optional' and used to 'scope the summary', with the additional context that omitting it returns cross-plan stats. It does not explain the format or constraints of plan_id values, preventing a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('gate outcomes'), detailing exactly what metrics are returned (fired frequency, caught issues, changed code). It clearly distinguishes this as an analytics/reporting tool among operational siblings like morpheus_advance and morpheus_init.

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 contextual guidance: it explains the default behavior when plan_id is omitted (returns lifetime stats across all plans) and explicitly states the value proposition ('identify which gates produce value and which are ceremony'). It lacks explicit 'use instead of X' alternatives, but the use case is distinct enough.

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