DX 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. It discloses that the tool calls two endpoints, which adds behavioral context beyond a simple read operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the combined output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a note on implementation and a clear parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value: the first states the goal, the note clarifies the backend calls, and the Args section documents parameters efficiently without redundancy.

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 (calls two endpoints, 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or usage context relative to siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining all four parameters: 'id' as the 'Initiative public ID', and the optional parameters with their purposes, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'limit' with 'Maximum 100, defaults to 50'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get initiative details including both the initiative info and its progress report.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('initiative details'), and mentions it calls two specific endpoints. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getEntityDetails' or 'listInitiatives' beyond the resource focus.

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 sibling tools like 'listInitiatives' for listing or 'getEntityDetails' for other entity types, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The note about calling two endpoints is technical but doesn't inform usage decisions.

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