GoLogin 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 but offers no information beyond the basic action. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format might be, or any rate limits or side effects, making it inadequate for a tool with behavioral 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 extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'Get latest useragent', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this brevity contributes to efficiency, it comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 (1 parameter with an enum but no schema descriptions), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'useragent' is, how it relates to profiles, what the output contains, or any behavioral context, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds no semantic information about the 'os' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'os' stands for, how the enum values map to operating systems, or why this parameter is required, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 latest useragent' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_profile_latest_useragent' without adding meaningful context. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('latest useragent'), but doesn't clarify what a 'useragent' refers to in this system or how it relates to profiles, making it vague rather than specific.

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 lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_profile__id__' or 'get_profile_v2' that might handle related functionality, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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