:GT Protocol MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: tokens persist to ~/.gt-mcp-auth.json (side effect), auto-refresh mechanism (maintenance behavior), and session expiration lifecycle—rich context for a stateful operation.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. First establishes purpose, second covers usage frequency, persistence location, refresh behavior, and re-authentication conditions. No redundancy; every clause 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?

Comprehensive for an authentication tool with no output schema: explains the contract (credentials in, persisted session out), side effects, and lifecycle. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly describe error behavior or return value structure on failure.

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% with clear descriptions for email and password. The description mentions the account credentials implicitly but doesn't add semantic details (validation rules, formats) beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Authenticate with your GT Protocol account'—specific verb (authenticate) and resource (GT Protocol account). It distinguishes clearly from operational siblings (close_deal, create_bot, etc.) as the prerequisite connection step.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Call this once to connect the MCP server') and when not to use ('no need to call this again unless your session is fully expired'). Provides clear lifecycle guidance that prevents redundant invocations.

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