Nerdearla Agenda MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so 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 doesn't address other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or how it determines 'closest' (e.g., by time, relevance). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's core function, followed by a brief additional detail about URLs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns (the next closest talk with URLs when available), which is adequate for basic understanding. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't fully cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or detailed output structure, leaving room for improvement in contextual coverage.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't add any parameter information beyond the schema. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no opportunity to add value.

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 la próxima charla más cercana' (Gets the next closest talk). It specifies a verb ('obtiene') and resource ('charla'), and includes an additional detail about including URLs when available. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_upcoming_talks' or 'get_best_talk_recommendation', which prevents 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. With sibling tools like 'get_upcoming_talks' and 'get_best_talk_recommendation' available, there's no indication of when this specific tool (getting the single next closest talk) is preferred over getting multiple upcoming talks or recommendations. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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