tactual-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Read-only, no parameters, static data,' which indicates safety and data characteristics. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error conditions, or response format details beyond the array structure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage instructions and default behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling or exact output schema, leaving minor gaps for a tool with static data.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'no parameters' and explaining the purpose of calling this tool for discovery, which complements the empty schema.

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 'List' and the resource 'assistive-technology (AT) profiles available for scoring', specifying that each profile models a screen reader and platform with navigation cost weights and action vocabulary. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on discovery of profiles rather than analysis or remediation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call once to discover valid profile IDs, then pass a profile ID to analyze_url, trace_path, or analyze_pages.' It also provides a default profile alternative: 'Default profile for all analysis tools is 'generic-mobile-web-sr-v0' if none is specified,' clarifying usage context.

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