Visum Thinker MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the tool's safety profile ('safely shutdown') and its intended use for 'problematic instances.' However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what specific resources get cleaned up, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The description provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the tool's identity and core functionality, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 that this is a potentially destructive operation (cleanup/shutdown) with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context. While it mentions safety and workflow dependencies, it doesn't explain what 'clean up resources' entails, what happens to data, whether the operation can be undone, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies system state, this represents significant gaps in contextual information.

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 single parameter 'force' well-documented in the schema itself. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 with specific verbs ('safely shutdown' and 'clean up') and identifies the target resource ('problematic instances'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on cleanup operations rather than diagnosis, monitoring, or project management functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'project_shutdown_instance' which appears to be a sibling tool with similar shutdown functionality.

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 clear contextual guidance by specifying 'Use after instance_diagnosis identifies issues,' establishing a workflow dependency. This gives the agent explicit direction about when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or provide alternatives for similar cleanup scenarios, which prevents a perfect score.

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