UnClick 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 describes what the tool does (retrieves detailed tool information) and implies it's a read-only operation (since it's about getting information). However, it doesn't mention potential behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the slug is invalid. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 complexity (simple single-parameter read operation), no annotations, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage sequence adequately, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error cases or response format details. It's minimally viable but could be more 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 100% description coverage, with the 'slug' parameter fully documented in the schema (including a list of available slugs). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'required parameters' generally but doesn't elaborate on the slug parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific UnClick tool including all its endpoints, required parameters, and response shapes.' It specifies the verb ('Get detailed information'), resource ('a specific UnClick tool'), and scope ('endpoints, required parameters, and response shapes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unclick_search' beyond mentioning a sequence relationship.

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: 'Use this after unclick_search to understand exactly how to call a tool.' This gives a specific sequence (after unclick_search) and purpose (to understand how to call a tool). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is practical and actionable.

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