IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating this isn't a read-only operation, but the description doesn't add behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. It doesn't mention what 'decoding' entails behaviorally (e.g., whether it's a pure transformation, if it handles malformed input, or any side effects). The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core function and contains no unnecessary information, making it highly efficient for quick understanding.

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?

For a simple transformation tool with one parameter fully documented in the schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema and with many similar sibling tools, it could benefit from more context about what 'decoding HTML entities' specifically means and how it differs from other decoding operations.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'text' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra value.

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 'Decode HTML entities' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('decode') and resource ('HTML entities'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'decode_url' or 'decode_base64', which prevents 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 many sibling decoding tools (decode_base64, decode_url, decode_jwt, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes HTML entity decoding from other types of decoding operations.

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