Habitica MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get user profile' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what data format is returned, whether it's cached or real-time, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just three words, but this borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks the additional context needed for a tool in a complex system with many sibling tools. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 of the system (24 sibling tools including various get operations) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'user profile' contains, how it differs from other user data tools, or what format the return data takes. For a tool in this rich context with no structured metadata, more descriptive content is needed.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation beyond what the schema already provides (which is none).

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 'Get user profile' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_stats' or 'get_inventory' that also retrieve user data. While it indicates a read operation on user profile data, it lacks detail about what constitutes a 'profile' in this 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_stats' and 'get_inventory' that also retrieve user information, there's no indication of what distinguishes a 'profile' from 'stats' or other data types. No context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions is provided.

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