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. It mentions that URLs are included when available, which adds some behavioral context about the response format. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no past talks exist. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with two short sentences that directly state the purpose and an additional feature (URL inclusion). It is front-loaded with the core function and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a response detail (URLs), but lacks information on usage context, behavioral traits, or output structure. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial but not critical for this simple tool.

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 has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing details on 'limit' including type, default value, and purpose. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already documents. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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 tool's purpose: 'Obtiene las charlas que ya pasaron' (Gets past talks) with the specific resource 'charlas' (talks). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_upcoming_talks' by specifying past talks, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_missed_talks' which might overlap. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'get_missed_talks' or 'get_upcoming_talks', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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