infomaniak_tool_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so a safe listing operation is understood. The description adds that it catalogs by category/risk/capability and frames it as a pre-workflow discovery tool, but doesn't disclose details like default limits or return structure beyond that. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core listing action, then a practical usage note. No wasted 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?

For a filtered catalog tool with output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides a clear high-level purpose and usage context. The low schema coverage for parameters is a minor gap, but the tool is self-descriptive as a tool catalog, so completeness is adequate.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'category' has a description). The description mentions 'by admin category, risk, and capability,' which implicitly maps to category/scope/risk filters, but it does not explain the 'limit' or 'include_descriptions' parameters, nor the enum semantics. The description doesn't compensate enough for the low 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('the MCP's Infomaniak tools') and specifies the organizing dimensions (admin category, risk, capability). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the tool catalog itself rather than a specific resource type.

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 states it is 'Best for asking what can this MCP do? before choosing a specific workflow,' which conveys when to use it as a discovery/overview tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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