meta-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It provides the validity period (~60 days) and credential requirements, but omits safety profile (whether this invalidates the short token, idempotency, or rate limits).

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core operation and validity period, followed immediately by prerequisites. Every word earns its place.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter utility function. Covers input requirements and operational prerequisites. Lacking output description (what the long-lived token looks like), but given the simple input schema and standard OAuth pattern, this is acceptable though not ideal.

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?

While schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, the description adds crucial context about required external credentials (META_APP_ID and META_APP_SECRET) not present in the input schema. This compensates for schema limitations regarding authentication context.

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?

Clearly states the core action (exchange) and resources (short-lived to long-lived token) with specific validity context (~60 days). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling `meta_refresh_token` by specifying 'short-lived' input, though explicit comparison would strengthen this.

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?

Provides critical prerequisites (META_APP_ID and META_APP_SECRET requirements) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus `meta_refresh_token` or initial authentication flows. No mention of error conditions or retry behavior.

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