ClawDaddy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully explains the behavioral effects of settings (lock 'prevents unauthorized transfers', auto-renew 'automatically renews before expiration') and states the auth requirement. It lacks details on failure modes, idempotency, or side effects.

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?

Four efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose, followed by explanatory clauses for specific parameters and the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its 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?

As a mutation tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the input parameters and their semantics. However, it omits expected return values, success/failure behaviors, or confirmation of immediate vs. delayed application of settings.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining what 'lock' and 'auto-renew' actually accomplish functionally (security intent and expiration timing), rather than just their mechanical operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('domain settings'), and mentions specific sub-settings (Lock, Auto-renew). However, it fails to explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'get_settings' tool, which could cause confusion about which to use for reading vs. writing.

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 mentions the auth requirement ('Requires management token'), providing a prerequisite. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_settings', or when NOT to use it (e.g., warnings about lockout risks).

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