Skippr Extension MCP Server

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 states the action ('broadcasts a message') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what happens if no extensions are connected, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the nature of the broadcast (e.g., real-time, queued). For a tool that interacts with external systems, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and target, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the verb, object, and scope.

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 (broadcasting to external extensions), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values in the description. The combination of a clear purpose and output schema keeps it from being inadequate, but gaps in transparency and guidelines prevent a higher 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('type' with enum values and 'payload'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining what each message type entails or payload format examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 ('broadcasts a message') and target ('all connected browser extensions'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'skippr_notify_project_extensions' (which targets specific projects) or 'skippr_send_to_extension' (which targets individual extensions), missing an opportunity for full sibling distinction.

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 broadcasting to all extensions is appropriate compared to more targeted notifications (like 'skippr_notify_project_extensions'), nor does it specify prerequisites such as requiring extensions to be connected. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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