Refgrow 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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. It mentions the data returned but not the format or potential errors, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines from the purpose for clarity.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what data is retrieved but lacks information on return format, error handling, or dependencies on other tools. For a simple read operation, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement.

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 minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It specifies that the email parameter is used to identify 'a specific affiliate,' but the schema already describes it as 'The affiliate's email address.' No additional semantics like format hints or usage examples are provided, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific affiliate by their email address, including click count, signups, purchases, and earnings.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('affiliate'), and key details retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_affiliates' or 'get_referral_details', which would require a 5.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'get_affiliate_details' over 'list_affiliates' for bulk data or 'get_referral_details' for related information, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or rate limits. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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