Insight Digger MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses authentication requirements ('🔒 [Requires Authentication]'), caching behavior ('🔄 Auto-Cached'), workflow dependencies (data from other tools), and post-call requirements (synthesizing insights into a report). It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or performance characteristics, but provides substantial behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately front-loaded with purpose and key constraints, but includes extensive post-call instructions (4 bullet points on report synthesis) that belong in workflow documentation rather than tool description. While some context is useful, the report formatting requirements are overly prescriptive and verbose for a tool description.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good authentication and workflow context but lacks details on return values (only mentions 'detailed insights' without format), error handling, and the 'apiUrl'/'jwtToken' mentioned in caching note (not in schema). The post-call report instructions partially compensate but don't fully address output expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'chartData' is 'automatically provided from get_charts_data step' and 'question' is 'from the workflow', clarifying their sources and typical non-requirement for manual provision. However, it doesn't detail the structure of 'chartData' (an object with additionalProperties) or format expectations for 'question', leaving some semantic gaps.

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 'analyzes data from all charts and returns detailed insights' with a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('data from all charts'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_charts_data' (data retrieval) or 'create_dashboard' (visualization creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_source_structure' which might have overlapping analytical functions.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states this is 'the final analytical step' (positioning in workflow), mentions prerequisites ('⚠️ Please authenticate first'), specifies when parameters are typically not needed ('You typically don't need to provide any parameters'), and references sibling tools for required data ('chartData' from 'get_charts_data', authentication from 'setup_authentication').

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