Habitica MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('获取通知列表') without mentioning any traits like permissions needed, pagination, rate limits, or what the return format might be (e.g., list structure, fields included). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns data.

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 phrase ('获取通知列表'), which is very concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing efficiency. This earns a high score for brevity and clarity in structure.

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 complexity (a data retrieval tool with no parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., notification objects, fields, or how to handle results), which is critical for an agent to use it effectively. More context is needed to bridge these gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter aspect, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 '获取通知列表' (Get notification list) states a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('通知列表' - notification list), providing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., unread/all, user-specific) and doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'read_notification' tool, which suggests a more targeted operation. This makes it vague in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for listing all notifications versus unread ones, or how it relates to 'read_notification' (which might mark notifications as read). Without such context, the agent has minimal direction on appropriate usage.

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