honeycomb-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 doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or response format. 'Get information' implies a safe read, but this isn't explicitly stated, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get information'), making it easy to scan. No unnecessary details or redundancy are present.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It lacks context on what 'information' includes, error scenarios, or how it fits with siblings (e.g., 'honeycomb_marker_create' for creation). For a retrieval tool in a complex system like Honeycomb, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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 both parameters ('datasetSlug' and 'markerId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'marker' is in Honeycomb context or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'information about a specific marker', which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what type of information (e.g., metadata, configuration, status) or distinguish from sibling tools like 'honeycomb_markers_list' (which lists multiple markers) or 'honeycomb_marker_update' (which modifies markers).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid marker ID), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'honeycomb_markers_list' for listing all markers. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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