Coffee Company 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 states the tool queries and displays assets in a list view, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in Chinese, followed by the HTTP API and a brief parameter note. There's no wasted text, and the structure is logical, though the inclusion of the HTTP API might be extraneous if not needed by the agent.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral context, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or performance traits that could be important for an agent.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'member_id' is a 'Coffee Company会员ID' (Coffee Company member ID), which provides context not in the schema (which only has 'Member Id' as a title). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this is a baseline case; the description compensates slightly but doesn't fully detail format or constraints.

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: '查询客户全部资产（优惠券 + 权益券），一览式展示' (Query all customer assets [coupons + equity coupons], displayed in a list view). It specifies the verb (query), resource (customer assets), and scope (all, including both coupon and equity coupon types). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coupon_query' or 'equity_query', which might query subsets rather than all assets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'coupon_query' or 'equity_query' that might be more appropriate for specific asset types, nor does it indicate prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implicit clue is the mention of 'member_id', but this doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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