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 states the action ('Restarts') but doesn't describe what happens during restart (e.g., active connections are dropped, server temporarily unavailable), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output indicates. For a server control tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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) and 100% schema coverage for its single parameter, the description's minimalism is partially justified. However, as a server control operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention behavioral aspects like disruption effects or success indicators. It's adequate but leaves gaps in operational context.

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 the single optional parameter 'port' with its type, description, and default behavior. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 specific action ('Restarts') and the target resource ('the WebSocket server that communicates with browser extensions'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'skippr_extension_server_status' (status check) or 'skippr_disconnect_extension' (disconnection). It uses precise technical terminology that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), consequences (e.g., temporary disruption to extensions), or when to choose it over other server-related tools like 'skippr_disconnect_extension' or 'skippr_extension_server_status'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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