Personal Context MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does (check status) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what specific information is returned. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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 perfectly concise with a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration. The structure is optimal for a zero-parameter status-checking tool.

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 status check with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but doesn't provide enough context about what 'OTP configuration status' entails or what 'OTP verification is required' means in practice. For a tool that likely returns structured status information, more detail about the return format would be helpful.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps. The description focuses correctly on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 with specific verbs ('check') and resources ('OTP configuration status', 'OTP verification requirement'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'disable_otp', 'lock_otp', 'setup_otp', and 'verify_otp' by focusing on status checking rather than modification or verification actions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_available_personal_info' which might also provide OTP-related information.

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 implies usage context (checking OTP configuration and verification requirements) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use scenarios or specific prerequisites are mentioned. The tool's purpose suggests it should be used before OTP-related operations, but this isn't stated.

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