Nerdearla Agenda MCP Server

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 mentions that URLs are included when available, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what constitutes a 'missed talk' beyond the basic definition, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently state the purpose and a key feature (URL inclusion). It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral notes, but it's still very efficient.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and hints at output behavior (URLs), but for a tool that likely returns a list of talks, it lacks details on format, sorting, pagination, or error cases. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no compensation is needed, and the description doesn't detract by implying parameters that don't exist.

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: 'Obtiene las charlas que te perdiste (que empezaron pero no terminaron)' specifies retrieving missed talks that started but didn't finish. It distinguishes from siblings like get_past_talks or get_upcoming_talks by focusing on incomplete talks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like get_past_talks or get_next_talk. It mentions including URLs when available, but this is a feature detail, not usage context. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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