Underground Cultural District 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 clearly states the tool's function and limitation ('Does not verify signatures'), which is crucial for understanding its behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, output format, or performance characteristics, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it easy for an AI agent to parse 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (decoding a structured token), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its main limitation, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or examples, which could help an agent use it more effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'token' parameter fully documented. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., token format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('decode a JWT token') and the resource ('JWT token'), specifying what it returns ('header and payload') and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'validate-wallet' or 'generate-hash'. It explicitly mentions what it does NOT do ('Does not verify signatures'), which helps differentiate it from potential verification 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to inspect the contents of a JWT token without verifying its signature. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., if a verification tool existed), which prevents a perfect score.

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