Coffee Company MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the HTTP endpoint (POST /crmadapter/account/memberTier), it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error responses, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description doesn't explain what happens with invalid member_id values or whether the operation has side effects.

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 efficiently structured with purpose statement first, followed by API endpoint, then parameter documentation. Each sentence serves a clear purpose. However, the Chinese-to-English code comment style creates minor redundancy, and the parameter documentation could be more integrated with the main 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which presumably describes the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and a single parameter, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning. It lacks important behavioral context like authentication requirements and error handling that would be needed for robust agent 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?

The description explicitly documents the single parameter (member_id) with a clear explanation: 'Coffee Company会员ID' (Coffee Company member ID). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides essential semantic context that the schema lacks. The description fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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: '查询会员等级详情' (query member tier details) with specific outputs listed (current stars, tier validity period, gap to next level). It distinguishes itself from siblings like member_query (likely general member info) by focusing specifically on tier details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with member_benefit_list or member_benefits which might overlap in membership context.

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 when this tool is appropriate compared to member_query (which might include tier info) or member_benefit_list (which might relate to tier benefits). There's no discussion of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical usage patterns.

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