Fabits MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Setup e-mandate' implies a configuration/write operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is a one-time setup, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits/constraints. For a financial setup tool with 9 parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mandate setup tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an e-mandate is in this context, what the setup process entails, what happens after setup, or what the tool returns. The combination of complex domain, multiple parameters, and lack of structured metadata requires more explanatory content.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify the purpose of optional fields like 'amount' override. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Setup e-mandate') and the target resource ('for action plan SIP'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this as a setup/configuration tool rather than an investment or query tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'fabits_start_sip' which might have overlapping domains.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an action plan must exist first), when this should be called in a workflow, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'fabits_start_sip' or 'fabits_invest_basket_sip' that also involve SIPs.

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