texterify-mcp

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

Annotations confirm read-only/idempotent nature. Description adds crucial response structure documentation (data fields and meta.total) since no output schema exists. Documents return format without contradicting safety annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: clear purpose statement, usage guidelines with sibling context, and response documentation. Front-loaded with most critical information. No redundancy with schema or annotations.

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?

Thoroughly documents response structure despite missing output schema. Explains the TEXTERIFY_PROJECT_ID environment variable context. Could explicitly mention pagination behavior beyond referencing meta.total, but adequately complete for a discovery tool.

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 has 100% coverage with complete descriptions for search, page, and per_page. Description does not repeat parameter details but relies on well-documented schema, meeting baseline expectations for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Specifies exact action (List), resource (Texterify projects), and scope (accessible to authenticated user). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by clarifying that other tools operate on pre-configured projects while this one discovers 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'discover project IDs and names' or 'verify the currently configured project'. Clearly notes exclusion: 'all other tools already operate on the pre-configured project...so this tool is mainly useful for discovery and verification'.

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