GoLogin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all folders' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how data is returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 'Get all folders' is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just three words that directly convey the core action. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of effective minimalism for a simple tool.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like read-only nature, return format, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't add or contradict parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 'Get all folders' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('folders'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'all' entails (e.g., scope, filtering) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_workspaces' or 'get_tags_all', which could have similar list operations. It's not tautological but remains vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it retrieves only active folders or includes deleted ones. With many sibling tools for different resources, the lack of comparative guidance leaves usage unclear.

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