Vaiz MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'filtering and pagination support' but lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, error handling, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 core purpose. Every word earns its place by conveying key capabilities (filtering, pagination) without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise 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 complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate information to effectively use this tool in context with its siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It vaguely mentions 'filtering' but doesn't specify which parameters (e.g., readStatus, groups) correspond to filtering or how pagination works with 'limit' and 'lastLoadedDate'. This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 ('user notifications'), and mentions filtering and pagination capabilities. However, it doesn't specifically differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_history' or 'search' that might also retrieve notification-related data, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_user_history' and 'search' that might overlap in functionality, there's no explicit or implied context for choosing this specific tool, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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