Как использовали этот MCP

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: traces are written automatically on every tool call, can be disabled with TBANK_TRACE=0, and contain no secrets or free text. It also explains how the report sections are intentionally structured, including the deliberate mixing of failures and successes.

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 comprehensive but disciplined: purpose and exclusions come first, then parameters, then how to interpret the output. Each block adds critical guidance without redundancy, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to extract the relevant information quickly.

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 debug tool, the description covers every important aspect: what data is captured, how to request it, why the output is structured, and what to do with the findings. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to document return format in prose, and the description still explains the report's semantic sections.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully defines both parameters: runs determines how many recent server runs to examine with 0 meaning all available, and top controls how many lines are shown per section. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it reports which tools were called, in what order, what responses were returned, and where agents got stuck. It also explicitly scopes the tool to debugging the MCP itself and contrasts it with banking tasks, which helps distinguish it from the large set of business-oriented sibling tools.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when debugging the MCP, not for banking tasks. It also maps each report section to a diagnostic interpretation, such as repeated identical calls indicating a poor docstring, and transitions diverging from an expected flow.

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