IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (implying a read operation). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, such as hinting at the types of statistics returned, but it does not detail aspects like rate limits, error handling, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and includes helpful examples ('character count, word count, etc.') without unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only operation) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks depth. It does not explain the output format or specific statistics returned, which is a gap since there is no output schema. However, for a simple analysis tool, it meets minimal requirements.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'text' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints on text length or format. 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('statistics about text'), and it provides examples of what statistics are included ('character count, word count, etc.'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_distinct_words' or 'compare_text', which might also analyze text in different ways.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose this over 'analyze_distinct_words' for word-level analysis or 'compare_text' for comparative purposes. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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