tlc-portal-mcp

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

Discloses critical interactive traits absent from annotations: requires browser opening, user intervention, and JWT persistence side-effects. However, fails to specify timeout expiration behavior, return values, or whether existing sessions are overwritten—significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints.

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?

Single Korean sentence is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, with no redundant words. Conciseness is technically good, though excessive brevity contributes to informational deficits in other scoring dimensions.

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?

Insufficient for an interactive authentication tool with no output schema or annotations. Missing: return value contract, error handling on timeout, browser requirements, and idempotency characteristics (can this be called multiple times?).

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 coverage is 0% (timeout_seconds lacks description field). Description provides zero compensation for this gap—does not mention the parameter, its units (seconds), or behavior when timeout is reached. Falls below minimum viable threshold.

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?

Clear verb+resource combination ('로그인'/'login') and distinguishes from siblings (auth.clear, auth.status, auth.import_vuex). Explicitly identifies browser-based interactive flow, though could clarify scope regarding session overwrite behavior.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., 'use when not authenticated'). No comparison to auth.import_vuex for importing existing tokens versus fresh browser authentication. Usage is only implied by the mechanistic description.

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