Refgrow MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists data with stats and supports filtering/pagination, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, potential side effects, or response format details, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope (stats included), and key features (filtering, pagination) without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for its informational content.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and features but lacks details on authentication, error handling, response structure, or deeper behavioral context. It's adequate for a read-only list tool but incomplete for full agent understanding without structured support.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (status, limit, offset) with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all affiliates in your Refgrow project') with specific stats included (clicks, signups, purchases, earnings). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_affiliate_details' by indicating it lists multiple affiliates rather than getting details of one, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_conversions'.

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 implies usage for retrieving affiliate data with stats and filtering/pagination capabilities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_affiliate_details' for single affiliates or other list tools for different resources. It mentions filtering by status and pagination, which suggests context but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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