Warpmetrics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is cached/real-time. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second elaborates on specific metrics. Every element serves a purpose with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the metrics list into the first sentence, but overall it's appropriately concise.

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 adequately covers the basic purpose and scope. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context (like whether this is cached data or real-time) and clearer differentiation from sibling tools to be fully complete for agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool retrieves rather than what it accepts. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 'global counters', specifying what metrics are retrieved (total runs, groups, calls, outcomes, tokens, cost, latency). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'all-time' project-wide aggregates rather than individual entities or time-series data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'get_stats' or 'get_outcome_stats'.

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 for retrieving all-time project metrics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_stats' or 'get_timeseries'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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