AI Takeover Tracker MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does (gets questions that adjust risk scores) but lacks behavioral details such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like. It adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and provides an example, while the second adds context about the broader experience. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the second sentence could be seen as slightly promotional rather than essential.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data (personalization questions). It doesn't explain what the output contains, how questions are formatted, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with one parameter but potentially complex output, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Occupation slug or SOC code'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, formats, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 personalization questions for an occupation' with specific examples like 'What type of accounting do you specialize in?' and mentions they adjust risk scores. It distinguishes from siblings like get_occupation_risk or get_occupation_tasks by focusing on personalization questions rather than risk scores or tasks directly. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_specializations, which might overlap in concept.

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 mentions the full personalized scoring experience is available elsewhere, but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over siblings like get_occupation_risk or get_specializations, nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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