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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read-only operation (explicitly marked '[READ-ONLY]'), requires specific permissions ('stations:read' scope), and outlines the operation's nature (paginated, filtered, sorted). It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but covers essential behavioral aspects well.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: it states the purpose, maps to the API endpoint, specifies the required scope, and declares read-only status. There is no wasted information or 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 complexity (list operation with filtering/sorting/pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, authentication, and behavioral traits, but lacks details on output format, pagination behavior, or error cases, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the parameters (limit, offset, sort). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Gets'), resource ('list of interfaces'), and scope ('paginated, filtered, and sorted'), distinguishing it from siblings like getInterface (singular) or listStations (different resource). It explicitly mentions the corresponding API endpoint for clarity.

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 clear context by specifying the required scope ('stations:read'), which indicates when authentication is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getInterface (for a single interface) or other list tools for different resources, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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