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 reveals the rate limit constraint (250/day) and time window behavior. It could improve by mentioning authentication requirements or return value structure.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. Critical information (action, time window, hard limit) is front-loaded and densely packed without verbosity.

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 simplicity (no parameters, single purpose) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract. It could marginally improve by indicating the return value format (count vs. object).

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 zero parameters (100% coverage by default). Per evaluation rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter clarification.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource (remaining publishing quota) and scope (current 24-hour window). It effectively distinguishes from sibling publishing tools by focusing on rate limits rather than content creation.

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 by stating the 250 posts/day maximum, implicitly signaling this should be checked before publishing. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' wording (e.g., 'Use before threads_publish_*') or failure mode guidance.

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