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 the full burden. It mentions that verification is required for accessing encrypted data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what happens on failure (e.g., lockout), rate limits, authentication needs beyond the token, or whether this is a one-time or session-based verification. For a security-critical tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 (security verification tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but misses critical behavioral details (e.g., success/failure outcomes, security implications). For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, this is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain token format or userId usage). With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the gap but doesn't worsen it either.

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 as 'Verify an OTP token to access encrypted personal data', which is specific (verb+resource) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'setup_otp' or 'disable_otp'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'otp_status' which might check status rather than verify.

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 clear context: 'Required before reading encrypted information', which indicates when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for accessing data). It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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