Vitally MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Refresh' implies a read operation that updates data, but it doesn't specify whether this is a safe read (e.g., no side effects), requires authentication, involves rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 that directly states the tool's action and domain. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('refresh the list of accounts') and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context, but its brevity is a strength.

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 complexity (a data retrieval/update operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'refresh' means operationally, the expected return values, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its full context.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, detailing 'limit' as 'Maximum number of accounts to fetch (default: 100)'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as typical values or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the tool 'refresh[es] the list of accounts' and specifies it's a 'Vitally tool', which clarifies the domain. However, it's vague about what 'refresh' entails (e.g., fetching from an external source, updating a cache) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_accounts' or 'find_account_by_name' that also retrieve account data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing (e.g., use to update stale data), or compare it to siblings like 'search_accounts' for filtered queries. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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