Status do Despezzas MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it checks credentials/token, which is useful context but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as response format or potential error states. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's functionality. It is front-loaded and contains no 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's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does without needing more detail. The output schema presumably defines the response structure.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, so it is adequate. A higher score would require additional context about what is checked, but no parameters exist to merit it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to verify if the server has credentials or token for Despezzas. It uses a specific verb ('Verifica') and resource ('credenciais ou token'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'despezzas_list_accounts' or 'despezzas_profile' which are not health checks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical usage scenarios, or when not to use it. For a health check tool, it would be helpful to suggest calling it before other operations, but this is missing.

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