check_mcp_privileges

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only, indicates the return values (GRANTED/DENIED), and describes the failure mode when the privilege is absent (HTML login page or 403/404). This gives the agent a complete picture of the tool's behavior and implications.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by crucial usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content. It is concise yet information-dense.

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, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it checks, what it returns, when to use it, and how to interpret failure. The mention of the 'AI Hub MCP privilege' and the consequence of missing it provides sufficient context for an agent to use this tool effectively before proceeding with other MCP operations.

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is fully descriptive (100% coverage). There is no need for parameter explanations in the description. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent arguments.

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 function: 'Probe (read-only) whether the API client holds the AI Hub MCP privilege (GRANTED/DENIED).' It uses a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('AI Hub MCP privilege'), and the result values (GRANTED/DENIED) are explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling mcp_* tools and even from the similar 'check_privileges' tool by focusing on the MCP-specific privilege.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run before the other mcp_* tools.' It also explains the consequence of not having the privilege ('Workato returns the HTML login page or 403/404'), which helps the agent understand why this tool should be invoked first. This is a clear directive with a rationale, going beyond vague context.

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