ClawDaddy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires management token') and supported record types. It fails to clarify mutation behavior: whether adding duplicate records fails or overwrites, idempotency, or success indicators.

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?

Three sentences efficiently structured: purpose first, then capabilities, then usage constraints. No redundant words. '@' shortcut and token requirement are critical front-loaded constraints that earn their place.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage hurdles (root domain syntax, auth requirement, type constraints). Minor gap in not mentioning TTL default behavior described in the schema, but sufficient for tool selection.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context for the 'host' parameter ('@' for root) and presents supported record types in a readable format, exceeding the raw enum in the 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 states exactly what the tool does using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('DNS record to a domain'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_dns_record and delete_dns_record through the explicit 'Add' operation.

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?

Provides concrete usage hints ('Use '@' for root domain host') and prerequisites ('Requires management token'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_dns_record or behavior when adding duplicate records.

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