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 ('Sends a message') but doesn't describe what happens after sending (e.g., whether it's fire-and-forget, requires extensions to be connected, provides delivery confirmation, or has rate limits). For a notification tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in understanding the tool's behavior and implications.

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 functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and target, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key elements like 'all browser extensions' and 'specific project'.

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 that there's an output schema (though not provided here), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool that sends messages to extensions, the description lacks context about delivery mechanisms, error handling, or what 'connected' means operationally. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it's adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full scope and reliability.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema adequately documents the parameters, so the description doesn't need to compensate, but it also doesn't provide additional context like payload format examples or projectId validation rules.

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 ('Sends a message') and target ('to all browser extensions connected to a specific project'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'skippr_notify_all_extensions' (which likely notifies all extensions regardless of project) or 'skippr_send_to_extension' (which might target individual extensions), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 sibling tools like 'skippr_notify_all_extensions' or 'skippr_send_to_extension', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts for use. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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