Skippr Extension MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only list operation with filtering, which implies safety, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large result sets. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Lists all available Skippr issues') followed by the filtering capabilities. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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), 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a list operation with multiple filtering parameters and sibling tools, it should provide more context about usage scenarios and behavioral expectations to be truly complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions the same filtering parameters but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('Skippr issues') with specific filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like skippr_get_issue (singular) and skippr_list_projects (different resource), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from potential similar list operations, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 like skippr_get_issue for single issues or skippr_list_projects for projects. It mentions filtering options but doesn't explain context or prerequisites for effective use. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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