Tulip 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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the HTTP method (GET), API endpoint, and required authentication scope ('stations:read'). It also marks the operation as '[READ-ONLY]', clarifying it's non-destructive. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format, which could be useful for an agent.

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 technical details (API endpoint, scope, read-only note) in a single, efficient sentence. There is no wasted text, and every part adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a basic read operation. It covers purpose, authentication, and safety, but lacks details on output format or error cases, which could be helpful for an agent invoking the tool without an output schema. It's adequate but has minor gaps in context.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'interfaceId' clearly documented. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to heavily.

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 action ('Gets details') and resource ('specific interface'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'listInterfaces' or 'getStation', which might also retrieve interface-related information, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval method.

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 by specifying it retrieves details for a 'specific interface' and mentions a required scope, suggesting it's for detailed lookups when an interface ID is known. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'listInterfaces' for broader queries or other get tools for related resources, leaving the agent to infer context.

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