meta-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it states that a new token is returned, it fails to clarify whether the old token is invalidated, what error occurs if the token is already expired, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 redundancy. The action is front-loaded ('Refresh...'), and every word serves a purpose. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description mentions the conceptual return value (new token), which helps. However, it omits error conditions, the fate of the old token, and output structure details that would help agents handle the response correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter format or constraints, earning the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action (refresh) and resource (long-lived token) with temporal scope ('before it expires'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'meta_exchange_token', which could confuse agents about whether to exchange or refresh.

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?

It provides an implied usage condition ('before it expires'), but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., if already expired) or how to choose between this and 'meta_exchange_token'. No alternative workflows are mentioned.

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