Habitica MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('mark as read') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient phrase in Chinese that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'marking as read' entails (e.g., updates a status, returns confirmation), potential errors, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'get_notifications'. For a tool that modifies state, more context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'notificationId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, but with 0 parameters needing extra explanation (since schema covers it fully), a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from understanding.

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 '标记通知为已读' (Mark notification as read) states a clear verb ('mark as read') and resource ('notification'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_notifications'. It specifies what the tool does but lacks precision about which notifications it affects or how it differs from related operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a notification ID from 'get_notifications'), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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