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. It states 'Get list of all proxies' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (implied by the 'page' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' encompasses (e.g., scope, filters). This is inadequate for a tool with a parameter and no annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple statement.

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 has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on pagination behavior, response format, error conditions, and usage context. For a list operation with a parameter, this minimal description doesn't provide enough information for effective tool use.

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. It mentions 'list of all proxies' but provides no information about the 'page' parameter (e.g., its purpose, format, default value, or how pagination works). This leaves a key parameter undocumented, failing to add meaningful semantics 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 'Get list of all proxies' clearly states the action (get) and resource (proxies), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_proxy__id_' (single proxy) and 'get_proxy_shared' (shared proxies). However, it doesn't specify what 'all' means in context (e.g., all accessible proxies vs. all in system).

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 like 'get_proxy__id_' for a specific proxy or 'get_proxy_shared' for shared proxies. The description mentions 'all proxies' but doesn't clarify if this includes deleted, inactive, or workspace-specific proxies, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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