razz-mcp

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 mentions the API key dependency (RAZZ_API_KEY), which is useful context, but fails to disclose what 'connecting' entails—whether it validates credentials, creates a session state, expires, or produces side effects. For an authentication tool, this lack of state-change detail is a notable gap.

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 consists of two efficient sentences: the first establishes purpose, the second provides usage context. There is no redundant text or wasted words; every clause delivers necessary information about the tool's function and prerequisites.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential authentication context (API key requirement). However, given this is likely a prerequisite tool for many sibling operations (games, messaging, etc.), the description could better clarify whether this call is mandatory before other operations and what indicates successful connection.

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 contains zero parameters (empty object), establishing a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion since none exist, and the 100% schema description coverage is trivially satisfied. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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 'Connect[s] to the platform using the configured API key,' specifying the verb (connect), resource (platform), and mechanism (API key). It implicitly distinguishes from 'razz_register' by mentioning 'after registering,' though it could more explicitly clarify what 'connect' means (e.g., validate key, establish session) to differentiate from other auth-adjacent siblings like 'razz_whoami'.

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?

Provides explicit operational prerequisites: 'Use this after setting RAZZ_API_KEY or after registering.' This signals the correct sequence in the authentication workflow and implies the distinction between initial registration (razz_register) and subsequent connection. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention of idempotency (e.g., whether calling twice is safe).

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