Personal Context 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 mentions disabling 'authentication and encryption for personal data,' which implies a security-related mutation, but doesn't specify critical details like whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or potential side effects (e.g., data exposure). This is inadequate for a tool that likely alters security settings.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, 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 complexity of disabling OTP (a security mutation with no annotations or output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error conditions, which are crucial for safe invocation. The agent is left with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information, but this is acceptable given the lack of inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 ('Disable') and the target ('OTP authentication and encryption for personal data'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lock_otp' or 'otp_status', which would require more specific context about how 'disable' differs from 'lock' or status checking.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'lock_otp' for permanent deactivation, or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., OTP must be enabled first). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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