GoLogin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get all workspaces' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes (e.g., list, paginated), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, sorting). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 workspaces' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, leaving no wasted words. This efficiency makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, authentication, or error handling. For a basic read operation, it's passable but could be more informative to fully guide the agent without relying on external context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. It meets the baseline for tools with no parameters by not introducing unnecessary complexity.

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 workspaces' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('workspaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspaces__wid__' (which gets a specific workspace) by implying retrieval of all items rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations like 'get_folders' or 'get_tags_all', leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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 prerequisites, context for retrieving all workspaces, or compare it to related tools like 'get_workspaces__wid__' for single workspace retrieval or 'post_workspaces' for creation. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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