Fabits 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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the user_id is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Get user action plans.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly more informative, but it's appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'action plans' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a financial context with many siblings, this leaves the AI agent with insufficient information to use it 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 'user_id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, 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 'Get user action plans' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('user action plans'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'action plans' entail (e.g., financial plans, tasks, or workflows) and doesn't distinguish this from siblings like 'fabits_get_portfolio' or 'fabits_get_sips', which also retrieve user-specific data. This leaves ambiguity about the specific type of data returned.

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. With siblings like 'fabits_get_portfolio' and 'fabits_get_sips' that might retrieve related user data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is based on the name, but this is insufficient for an AI agent to make informed decisions among similar tools.

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