Signal Found MCP

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. It effectively describes key behaviors: the three operational modes, message generation options, dependency on a Chrome extension, and failure condition if extension is offline. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format.

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 concise, with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then details modes, message options, and prerequisites in clear, bullet-like sections without redundancy.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers operational modes, message handling, and prerequisites well. The output schema existence means return values needn't be explained, but some parameter semantics (e.g., product_slug, limit) and edge cases are omitted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant semantic context for parameters like target_username, crm_reply_to, batch_from_working_leads, message, and generate_message by explaining their roles in the three modes and message generation. However, it doesn't cover all 9 parameters (e.g., product_slug, client_id, batch_id, limit remain unexplained).

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: 'Send Reddit DMs to scraped leads via the Signal Found Chrome extension.' It specifies the action (send), target (Reddit DMs), and mechanism (Chrome extension), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on CRM management, configuration, or analytics rather than direct messaging.

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 explicit usage guidance by detailing three distinct modes (target_username, crm_reply_to, batch_from_working_leads) and specifying that exactly one must be set. It also explains when to use manual vs. auto-generated messages and notes prerequisites like the Chrome extension being online.

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