LuckyCola 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks compliance but doesn't explain what '合规' (compliant) means, what standards are used, whether it's a read-only or mutation operation, potential side effects, or response behavior. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, clear sentence: '检查在线图片内容是否合规'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 of a compliance-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '合规' entails, what the output might look like (e.g., pass/fail, details), or any behavioral traits like error handling. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'imgUrl' documented as '需要检查的图片URL' (URL of the image to check). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles 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 tool's purpose as '检查在线图片内容是否合规' (check if online image content is compliant). It specifies the verb '检查' (check) and the resource '在线图片内容' (online image content), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fileOperation' or 'getFoodMenu', which are unrelated, so it doesn't fully address sibling 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts for usage. While sibling tools are unrelated, the lack of any usage context or comparison leaves the agent without direction on applicability.

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