UnClick 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 describes the action ('browse'), optional filtering, and return format, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only), which would be important for a tool that lists resources. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause, adds optional functionality, and specifies the return value—all in one efficient sentence. Every part earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an 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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, the filtering option, and the return format. However, it could be more comprehensive by addressing behavioral aspects like read-only nature or potential limitations, which would help an agent use it correctly in varied contexts.

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 one optional parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optionally filtered by category', but doesn't provide additional context like default behavior when no category is specified or how filtering works. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse all available UnClick tools' with optional filtering by category. It specifies the verb ('browse') and resource ('UnClick tools'), and mentions the return value ('list of tools with their slugs and descriptions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unclick_search' or 'unclick_tool_info', which might offer similar functionality.

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 implies usage context by mentioning optional filtering by category, suggesting it's for exploring available tools. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unclick_search' or 'unclick_tool_info' from the sibling list. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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