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. It states this is a query/list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. The mention of an HTTP API endpoint adds minimal context without specifics.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The additional lines for the HTTP API and parameter explanation are relevant but could be slightly more integrated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and multiple sibling tools, the description is somewhat incomplete—it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. It's adequate for a simple query tool but leaves gaps in context.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'member_id' is a 'Coffee Company会员ID' (Coffee Company member ID), which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Member Id' title. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient for a high score, though it doesn't 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: '查询会员的优惠券和权益券列表' (Query member's coupon and benefit voucher list). It specifies the verb (query/list) and resource (member's coupons and benefit vouchers). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coupon_query', 'equity_query', or 'member_benefits', which appear related.

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 mentions the HTTP API endpoint but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'coupon_query' and 'equity_query', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred.

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