RTM 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 authentication token validity and returns auth status and user info, which covers the basic operation. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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, with the main purpose stated first in a single sentence. The second sentence adds useful information about returns. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured, such as separating the return details into a bullet point for clarity.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and the output schema likely covers return values in detail. However, it could improve by addressing authentication prerequisites or error scenarios to be fully comprehensive.

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 doesn't need to add parameter details, but it could have mentioned that no inputs are required. Since the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description doesn't contradict or add to the schema, a score of 4 reflects that it adequately handles the parameter-less context without extra 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 tool's purpose: 'Check if authentication token is valid.' This is a specific verb ('check') and resource ('authentication token'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_connection', which might serve a similar purpose, so it doesn't reach the highest 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an authentication token, or compare it to other tools like 'test_connection' that might handle connectivity or broader system checks. Without such context, users must infer usage scenarios.

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