Amazing Marvin MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get projects' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this returns all projects, filtered projects, paginated results, or any authentication requirements. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered about scope, format, and constraints.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about what 'projects' means in this system, what format they return in, or how this differs from related tools. The lack of annotations means the description should do more to explain behavioral expectations for this retrieval operation.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema fully documents this. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details that don't exist.

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 'Get' and resource 'projects', specifying the source as 'Amazing Marvin'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project_overview' by focusing on retrieving projects themselves rather than overview data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_project' or other project-related tools beyond the basic verb distinction.

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 siblings like 'get_project_overview', 'get_tasks', and 'create_project', there's no indication of when this list-retrieval operation is appropriate versus more specific queries or creation operations. The description lacks any context about use cases or prerequisites.

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