Pinme Deploy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks status but doesn't describe what the check entails (e.g., whether it verifies availability, returns metadata, or performs validation), potential errors, or any side effects. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and limitations.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds parameter context without redundancy. It avoids unnecessary words and efficiently conveys essential information, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage notes.

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 moderate complexity (status checking with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status check returns (e.g., success/failure, deployment details), potential error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool without structured output documentation, the description should provide more behavioral and result context to be fully helpful.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions that status can be checked via 'CID 或 ENS URL' (CID or ENS URL), aligning with the schema parameters 'cid' and 'ensUrl'. However, it doesn't provide additional context such as parameter precedence (e.g., if both are provided), format details, or examples beyond what the schema descriptions already cover. With high schema coverage, the baseline is met but not exceeded.

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 tool's purpose: '检查 Pinme 部署状态' (check Pinme deployment status). It specifies the verb '检查' (check) and resource 'Pinme 部署状态' (Pinme deployment status), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_deployments', which might also provide status information in a different format or scope.

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 some usage context by stating '可以通过 CID 或 ENS URL 检查' (can be checked via CID or ENS URL), which implies this tool is for checking specific deployments identified by these parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_deployments' (which might list all deployments without filtering) or 'deploy_to_pinme' (for deployment actions). The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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