Self MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying it returns 'complete, working code example with comments', which gives behavioral context about output format and quality. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the code is customizable versus static templates.

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 with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value description. It's front-loaded with the core function and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels could be integrated more smoothly into prose.

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 (implied by 'Returns:' statement), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and parameters adequately for a code-generation tool with read-only annotations. However, it lacks integration context hints mentioned in the title ('after understanding the integration'), which could help agents use it appropriately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter semantics. It effectively explains both parameters: 'component' defines which part to generate (frontend-qr, backend-verify, smart-contract) and 'language' specifies programming language (typescript, javascript, solidity). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare enum values in the schema, though it doesn't detail what each component entails.

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 generates 'ready-to-use Self verification code for different components' with specific verbs ('generate', 'verify') and resources ('code', 'components'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'explain_sdk_setup' or 'generate_verification_config' by focusing on code generation rather than explanation or configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'generate_eu_id_verification' which might be similar in purpose.

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 to choose 'generate_verification_code' over sibling tools like 'explain_sdk_setup' for learning or 'generate_verification_config' for configuration. There's no context about prerequisites, integration understanding requirements, or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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