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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (indicated by '[READ-ONLY]'), requires specific permissions ('users:read' scope), and maps to a GET API endpoint. This covers safety and authentication needs adequately for a simple tool.

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 hint) in a single, efficient sentence. Every element adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, authentication, and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on output format or pagination, which could be useful but isn't critical for basic understanding.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior, which aligns with the baseline for zero 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 'Gets' and resource 'list of user roles', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getUserRole' (singular) and 'listUsers', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The mention of the API endpoint adds technical specificity.

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 stating the required scope 'users:read', which suggests when authentication is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getUserRole' or 'listUsers', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the scope requirement.

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