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 but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'verification' but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., whether it triggers user interaction, returns a status, or has side effects). No information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling is included.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('Requests verification') and directly states the purpose, making it easy to parse 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's moderate complexity (involving browser extension interaction) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on the verification process, dependencies, or error cases, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full usage.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., how projectId, issueId, and reviewId interact) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('Requests verification') and target ('from the browser extension to check if an issue has been fixed'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like skippr_get_issue or skippr_send_to_extension, which might involve similar issue-related operations.

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., needing a connected extension), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like skippr_get_issue (which might retrieve issue details without verification).

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