Loop 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 adds value by specifying the error condition ('will return an error if processing is not complete'), which is useful context beyond the basic 'get' action. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what 'results' entail (e.g., format, size), making it only moderately transparent.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral note. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for optimal clarity, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 (involves processing state), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and error condition but lacks details on return values, what 'processing' entails, or how it interacts with siblings like initialize_array, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a clear default and meaning for 'summarize.' The description doesn't mention parameters at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all results after all items have been processed.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('all results'), and the condition ('after all items have been processed') helps distinguish it from siblings like get_next_batch or get_next_item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from store_result or reset, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implies when to use this tool by stating 'after all items have been processed' and warns it 'will return an error if processing is not complete.' This provides some context for usage timing. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like get_next_batch for partial results or explain when not to use it, leaving gaps in guidance.

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