agency-mcp-server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, the description explains the browsing behavior: calling with no arguments shows all divisions, while passing a division name lists its agents. This operational detail isn't captured in 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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured. It uses only three sentences with clear semantic tagging (<usecase> and <instructions>) to separate purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter instructions. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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?

The description is mostly complete given the tool's complexity and available structured data. With annotations covering safety aspects and 100% schema coverage, the description effectively explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior. The only minor gap is lack of information about return format (no output schema exists), but this is acceptable for a browsing 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?

The description adds meaningful context about parameter usage beyond the schema. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description, but the <instructions> tag provides practical guidance: 'Call with no arguments to see all divisions. Pass a division name to list its agents.' This clarifies the semantic effect of including or omitting the parameter.

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: 'Browse all agent divisions and their agents.' This specifies the verb (browse) and resource (agent divisions and agents), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by contrasting with agency_search for when you already know what you need.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The <usecase> tag states: 'Explore the agent registry when you want to see what's available. Use agency_search instead if you already know what kind of agent you need.' This clearly defines the context and names the alternative tool.

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