Fabits 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. 'Invest in action plan via SIP' implies a financial transaction that creates a recurring investment commitment, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what happens if parameters are invalid, whether the investment is immediate or scheduled, or what side effects occur. For a financial tool with significant implications, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence containing 6 words. While this is efficient, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks any supporting context that would help an agent understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 financial investment tool with 6 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'action plan' means, what happens after investment, what the expected response format is, or any error conditions. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured behavioral information, the description fails to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.

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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how plan_id relates to SIP investment) or provide usage context. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Invest in action plan via SIP') which provides a basic purpose, but it's vague about what 'action plan' means and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'fabits_invest_basket' or 'fabits_invest_basket_onetime'. The description lacks specificity about what resource is being invested in or how this differs from other investment tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fabits_invest_basket_onetime' (one-time investment) or 'fabits_start_sip' (starting a SIP). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or any context for choosing this particular investment method over others available.

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