humansurvey-mcp

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 successfully adds context about ordering (newest first) and authorization scope (current API key). However, it lacks disclosure about the output structure, pagination behavior, or data completeness guarantees given there is no output schema to reference.

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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the second provides usage context. Every phrase earns its place—the ordering detail (newest first) and API key scoping are essential behavioral hints.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately implies the return content by referencing survey_id and open status. It covers the essential workflow context. A perfect score would require explicit enumeration of return fields or confirmation of pagination behavior.

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 contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameter semantics, and the empty schema is implicitly clear from the description's scope declaration (current API key).

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 provides a specific verb (List), resource (surveys), and scope constraints (current API key, ordered newest first). It clearly distinguishes this as a listing operation versus the sibling tools (create_survey, close_survey, get_results) through its explicit focus on retrieval and enumeration.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance stating when to use the tool: 'to find a survey_id you need for get_results or close_survey, or to check which surveys are still open.' It names specific sibling tools as alternatives for subsequent actions, clearly establishing this tool's role in a workflow.

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