GoLogin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Get profiles count' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what 'count' entails (e.g., total, active, filtered). It lacks details on response format, error handling, or any side effects, leaving critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 'Get profiles count', a single phrase that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient, though this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.

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 (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return, failing to bridge the gaps in structured data.

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%, with one required parameter 'wid' undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'wid' represents (e.g., workspace ID) or how it affects the count. With low coverage and no parameter details, it doesn't compensate for the schema's deficiencies.

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 profiles count' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'profiles count', but lacks detail on what 'profiles' refers to or the scope (e.g., within a workspace). Compared to siblings like 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond counting versus listing profiles.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as why one would choose this over 'get_workspaces__wid__profiles' for counting profiles. The description offers no usage context, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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