mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return content (sources, brands, etc.), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 that front-loads the purpose and details the return values. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies the return content, and the output schema will handle return value details.

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%, with clear descriptions for chat_id and project_id (including fallback to env variable and reference to list_projects). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 'Get' and resource 'full content of a specific AI chat', specifying what is returned (sources, brands, messages, queries, products). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_chats' (which lists chats) and 'get_brands_report' (which focuses on brands).

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 implies usage for retrieving detailed chat content, and the input schema provides guidance on project_id fallback and referencing list_projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_chats' or 'search_queries' for broader queries.

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