mcp-server-peecai

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world hints, so the agent knows it's safe and repeatable. The description adds value by detailing status values and their meanings (e.g., CUSTOMER for active monitoring), which provides context beyond annotations, but doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, keeping it at a moderate score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and status explanations, ending with a usage tip. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations provided, and an output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, return values, status semantics, and usage guidance, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 docs for 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or usage tips, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 resource 'Peec AI projects for the company', specifying it returns project IDs, names, and statuses. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_brands' or 'list_tags' by focusing specifically on projects, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use CUSTOMER projects for current data.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool's output over other status types, offering clear context for selection without needing to reference alternatives directly, as siblings are unrelated (e.g., reports, chats, brands).

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