Warpmetrics MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves data, implying it's a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' entails. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from included data, but overall it earns its place without waste.

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 (a read operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It mentions 'full details including calls and outcomes' but does not explain the return format, depth of nesting, or potential limitations. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior and results to be adequately complete.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which is documented as 'Group ID'. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that retrieval is 'by ID', but does not provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already states. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get group detail', 'Retrieve a single group') and identifies the resource ('group by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_groups' by specifying retrieval of a single item with full details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 mentioning retrieval 'by ID' and 'full details including calls and outcomes', suggesting it's for detailed views rather than listing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_groups' or other get_* tools, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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