Ploi 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Get server logs' reveals nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool that presumably accesses system logs, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to use its limited space to provide any meaningful context or differentiation from similar tools. Every word should earn its place, but here the words merely repeat the tool name without adding value.

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 purpose (retrieving potentially sensitive system logs), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral characteristics. The description should provide more context about what 'server logs' encompasses and how this differs from site-specific logging tools.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no 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 'Get server logs' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specificity. While it includes the verb 'Get' and resource 'server logs', it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_site_logs' or clarify what kind of logs are available versus other logging tools in the system.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'get_site_logs' and 'get_server' available, there's no indication of when this specific logging tool is preferred over others.

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