UnClick MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (loads memory), works 'zero-config locally' or with Supabase for sync, and returns specific data types. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, providing usage instructions, and explaining implementation details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about what data is returned and implementation options. However, without an output schema, more detail about return format would be helpful. The description compensates well but doesn't fully address the lack of structured output documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data.

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 with specific verbs ('Load persistent UnClick Memory') and resources ('business context, recent session summaries, and hot facts'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for session initialization, unlike search_memory or add_fact which operate on memory during sessions.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this FIRST in every new session' with clear context about when to use (session start) and purpose (to understand user's ongoing projects, preferences, and open loops). No alternatives are mentioned since this is the designated initialization tool.

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