Feedbucket 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 states the tool marks feedback as resolved, implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., status changes), or error handling. The phrase 'after actioning it' hints at a workflow but doesn't clarify behavioral traits like idempotency or response format.

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 zero waste—'Mark a feedback item as resolved after actioning it'—front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 mutation tool. It lacks details on what 'resolved' entails (e.g., status update, timestamp), potential errors, or return values. The context signals (3 params, 100% schema coverage) don't compensate for missing behavioral and output information.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters (feedback_id, reporter_name, reporter_email). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying feedback_id is required for resolution. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles semantics, with no extra value from 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 verb ('Mark as resolved') and resource ('a feedback item'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like feedback_comment (add comment) and feedback_get (retrieve), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings (e.g., feedback_stats might involve resolution status).

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 minimal guidance with 'after actioning it', implying this should be used post-resolution, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like feedback_comment for updates or feedback_list for viewing. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.

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