MCP Atlas

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 reports status, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the report includes (e.g., migration progress, errors). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and understand the core function.

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 migration status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the status report contains, how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use in a migration workflow.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (url, dirUrl, format) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying status reporting, which is covered by the tool's purpose. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

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 action ('Report') and resource ('current migration status of a database'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'migrate-apply' or 'migrate-validate', which likely perform different migration-related actions, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it should be used before or after other migration steps, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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