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 output presentation (QR code/backup codes in app panel or structured result) but omits critical details like whether this is a one-time setup, if it overwrites existing OTP, required permissions, or error conditions. For a security-related tool, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds necessary context about output handling without redundancy, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 security setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., irreversible changes), error handling, and how the output integrates with sibling tools. The context about client capabilities is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Set up') and resource ('One-Time Password for encrypted personal data'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lock_otp' or 'disable_otp', which would require more specific language about initial setup versus management.

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 mentions client capabilities (MCP App-capable vs. others) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'verify_otp' or 'otp_status'. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for setup.

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