tlc-portal-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose what 'status' entails (boolean, user object, token details?), error behavior when unauthenticated, or whether this is a safe read-only operation.

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 sentence is appropriately concise, though given the lack of annotations and output schema, it is arguably too brief rather than efficiently structured. No redundancy or filler present.

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?

No output schema exists and no annotations are provided. For an authentication utility, the description should compensate by describing the return value structure (fields, types, error states), but it provides only a high-level verb without payload details.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (vacuously true). Baseline score applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the empty schema.

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 states a specific action (returns) and resource (current authentication status). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling auth.login and auth.clear by being a read operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus auth.login or auth.clear. Missing prerequisites (e.g., whether valid credentials must exist to call this) and no mention of alternative approaches.

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