mcp-esa-server-python

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a new post' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: required permissions, whether the post is immediately published (vs. draft), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. The parameter documentation in the Args section provides some operational context but doesn't cover broader behavioral traits.

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 but not optimally structured. The opening sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the Args section uses a documentation-style format rather than integrated prose. While all information is relevant, the structure could be more cohesive. The description avoids redundancy but doesn't achieve the efficiency of the highest-scoring examples.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. The parameter documentation is strong, but missing behavioral information about permissions, publishing workflow, and expected responses leaves gaps. For a post-creation tool, the description should ideally address whether the post becomes immediately visible, what authentication is required, and what the tool returns upon success.

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 significant value beyond the input schema through the detailed Args section. While schema description coverage is 67%, the description provides clear explanations for all 6 parameters, including default values (e.g., 'wip: default: true'), format examples ('category path (e.g., 'foo/bar')'), and purpose clarifications. This compensates well for the schema coverage gap and provides practical guidance for parameter usage.

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 action ('Create a new post') and target resource ('on esa.io'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like posts_delete, posts_get_detail, and posts_update by focusing on creation rather than deletion, retrieval, or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential creation tools beyond the esa.io 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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like posts_update might be more suitable. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names alone, with no explicit direction provided in the description text.

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