inoreader-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that this retrieves 'current authenticated' user info (implying authentication is required) and discloses the cost ('Costs 1 Zone 1 request'), which is useful for rate limit awareness. However, it doesn't describe response format or error behavior.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context (cost). There is zero waste or redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 simple read operation with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, authentication context, and cost. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning what user information is returned (e.g., profile, settings) to fully guide the agent.

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 the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining a baseline of 4 since no parameters need explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('current authenticated user information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_articles' or 'get_rate_limit_status' by focusing on user data rather than content or system status.

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 implies usage for retrieving authenticated user data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rate_limit_status' for system info or 'setup_auth' for authentication management. It lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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