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 mentions the HTTP API endpoint but doesn't describe what the tool returns, error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. The HTTP API reference is useful but could be more integrated. The structure is clear with bullet-like parameter explanations, though minor improvements in flow could enhance readability.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a query tool with output schema, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guiding the agent on when and how to use it effectively.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'mobile' uses fuzzy matching (e.g., '138****1234'), clarifies that 'open_id' is from third-party platforms, and specifies 'member_id' is for Coffee Company. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints or provide examples beyond the mobile hint.

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Coffee Company会员信息' (query Coffee Company member information). It specifies the resource (member information) and the action (query), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'member_benefit_list' or 'member_tier'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 lists the parameters but doesn't explain scenarios where this query tool is preferred over other member-related tools like 'member_benefit_list' or 'member_tier'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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