img-src 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. It states this is a read operation ('Get') and outlines what data is returned, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is cached/live, leaving behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists return data. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context by specifying the resource and return fields. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or data freshness, which would enhance completeness given the tool's operational context.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('your account settings') and listing return fields, which compensates for the lack of output schema. This exceeds the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'img-src.io account settings', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_image or get_usage by specifying account-level settings rather than image or usage data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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 like get_usage or other get_* tools. The description implies it's for account settings retrieval but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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