morpheus-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully declares the tool as 'Purely observational' (safety profile), explains that it 'records a timestamped message' (side effect), and notes visibility in morpheus_status (retrieval mechanism). It does not contradict any annotations.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core action and contains zero filler. Each of the three prose sentences plus the two parameter lines conveys essential information. Minor deduction for the informal 'Args:' block structure rather than prose integration, but overall 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 low complexity (2 primitive parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which absolves the description from detailing return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavioral constraints, parameter semantics, and visibility side effects sufficiently for correct agent invocation.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It fully documents both parameters under the 'Args:' section, explaining that task_id is 'The task ID to log progress for' and message is the 'Progress message to record.' While effective, the inline Args format is less structured than ideal schema documentation.

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 'Log progress for a task without advancing phases,' providing a specific verb (Log), resource (progress), and critical scope constraint that distinguishes it from siblings morpheus_advance and morpheus_advance_batch. The 'Purely observational' phrase further differentiates it from state-mutating tools.

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 phrase 'without advancing phases' effectively signals when NOT to use this tool (vs. morpheus_advance), and mentioning that output is 'Visible in morpheus_status' indicates the verification path. However, it stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools or stating 'use this when you need to log without phase changes.'

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