Amazing Marvin MCP

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. While 'Get all goals' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this returns all goals for the current user, workspace, or account; whether there are pagination limits; what authentication is required; or what format the results will be in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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 extremely concise - a single, clear sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a context with many similar 'get_' tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'goals' are in this system, how they differ from tasks or projects, what information is returned, or any limitations. For a read operation in a complex task management system, more context is needed.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all goals from Amazing Marvin'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_tasks', 'get_projects', or 'get_categories' - all of which follow the same 'get all X' pattern without differentiation.

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. With multiple 'get_' sibling tools available (get_tasks, get_projects, get_categories, etc.), there's no indication of when goals specifically are needed versus other entity types, nor any mention of prerequisites or context for using this tool.

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