Skippr Extension MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether disconnection is permanent or temporary, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to extension data, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with potential side effects, it should provide more context on behavior and usage, leaving room for improvement despite the output schema.

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 the parameter 'extensionId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID identifies the extension to disconnect, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 ('Disconnects') and resource ('a specific browser extension by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'skippr_list_connected_extensions' or 'skippr_notify_all_extensions' which might involve extension management but serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the extension must be connected first) or contrast with other tools like 'skippr_restart_extension_server' that might affect extensions differently.

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