Refgrow MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema parameters), or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a read operation with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 purpose and lists key filters without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's functionality, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and basic filters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, output format) and does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema, making it minimally viable.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing filterable attributes (type, affiliate, date range, paid status) but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('conversions (signups and purchases) tracked in your affiliate program'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_conversion' (singular) by indicating it lists multiple conversions with filtering capabilities.

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 context for usage by listing filterable attributes (type, affiliate, date range, paid status), which helps an agent understand when to apply this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as 'get_conversion' for a single conversion, 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.