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 mentions filtering and searching capabilities but fails to describe critical behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by limit/offset in schema but not explained), return format, error conditions, or rate limits. For a list operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 briefly mentions filtering options. There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, return format, or error handling, and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective tool invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by status, affiliate, or coupon code search, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline 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 action ('List coupon codes') and resource ('associated with affiliates in your project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_coupon' or 'list_affiliates' beyond mentioning affiliates as a filter option, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 by mentioning filtering options ('Filter by status, affiliate, or coupon code search'), suggesting when to use it for filtered queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_coupon' or 'list_affiliates', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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