Status do Despezzas MCP

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

The description states the behavior: it verifies token configuration. With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that it is read-only or any error conditions, but for a simple status check this is minimally adequate.

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 a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's action. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is sufficiently complete for a simple status check. It could optionally mention the return type, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter info beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 4.

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 the specific verb 'Verifica' (checks) and clearly identifies the resource: whether the MCP server is configured with a Despezzas token. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that are about creating, updating, or listing financial entities.

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 purpose is self-evident as a health check, and the context of sibling tools makes it clear when to use it (before dependent operations). However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided, which would merit a 5.

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