Opengraph io MCP

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 discloses that this is a retrieval/read operation (implied by 'Retrieve detailed information'), but doesn't mention behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The description adds some context about what data is returned, but lacks operational details that would be helpful for an agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a bulleted list of returns and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and efficiently communicates key information.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving session details with assets), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what information is returned. It covers session metadata, assets, and relationships. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema, preventing a perfect score.

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 100% with a single parameter (sessionId) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with high coverage and only one parameter, this is acceptable. The baseline would be 3, but the simplicity of a single UUID parameter elevates it slightly.

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 specific verb ('Retrieve detailed information') and resource ('about an image generation session and all its assets'), distinguishing it from siblings like generateImage (creates) or iterateImage (modifies). It explicitly lists what information is returned, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from related tools.

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 'Use this to' section provides clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., to review generated content, find asset IDs, understand history), which helps differentiate it from siblings like exportImageAsset or getOgData. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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