meta-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully identifies what data points are retrieved (validity, expiration, scopes, user) but omits whether this is a safe read-only operation, what response format to expect, or how it handles malformed tokens versus expired ones.

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, 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place by specifying either the operation, target resource, or the specific attributes inspected. Zero redundancy or filler content.

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 (single string parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is functionally complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the inspection targets. A minor gap remains in not describing the return structure or error cases.

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 ('Access token to inspect'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'access token' but adds no format constraints (e.g., JWT vs. opaque), validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('Debug/inspect') with a clear resource ('access token') and enumerates exactly what aspects are validated: 'validity, expiration, scopes and associated user.' This effectively distinguishes the tool from its 40+ siblings, which are predominantly content management operations (posting, commenting) rather than authentication utilities.

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?

While the description implies usage through the 'Debug/inspect' framing, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like meta_exchange_token or meta_refresh_token, or prerequisites such as needing a token to inspect. The usage is intuitive but not explicitly stated.

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