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. It discloses that this tool enables subsequent analysis tools and requires API URL and JWT token, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling, token expiration, security implications, or what happens on repeated calls. For an authentication setup tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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 excessively long and poorly structured for a simple authentication tool. Most content describes the broader system capabilities and workflow rather than focusing on the specific tool. The first two sentences contain the essential information, while the remaining sections (About This System, When to Use This System, Capabilities, Workflow) are unnecessary verbosity that doesn't help the agent use this specific tool.

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 authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about its prerequisite role and parameters. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, session tokens, error messages) and doesn't address important authentication concerns like token refresh or security best practices. The completeness is minimal but sufficient for basic usage.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters (apiUrl and jwtToken). The description mentions these parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already states. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, validation rules, or provide examples beyond the schema's URL example. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Setup authentication credentials for Sandsiv+ Insight Digger.' It specifies the exact action (setup) and resource (authentication credentials) with platform context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the mandatory first step before any analysis tools become available.

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: 'This must be called FIRST before any analysis tools become available.' It clearly indicates when to use this tool (as the initial authentication step) and implicitly when not to use it (after authentication is already established or for non-Sandsiv+ related tasks). The 'When to Use This System' section further contextualizes the broader platform usage.

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