IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false, indicating potential side effects, but the description doesn't add behavioral details beyond the basic purpose. It doesn't disclose if decoding is reversible, has rate limits, or requires authentication. Since annotations provide some safety info, the bar is lower, but the description adds minimal context, earning a baseline score.

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: 'Decode Microsoft Outlook SafeLink URLs.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a simple decoding tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive, as it could benefit from more context on when and how to use it effectively.

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 'safelink' parameter clearly documented as 'SafeLink URL to decode.' The description doesn't add extra semantic details beyond this, such as URL format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Decode Microsoft Outlook SafeLink URLs.' It specifies the verb ('decode') and resource ('Microsoft Outlook SafeLink URLs'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'decode_url' or 'decode_base64,' which handle other URL or encoding types, though the specificity to 'Microsoft Outlook SafeLink' implies a unique function.

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 doesn't mention scenarios for usage, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'decode_url' (for general URLs) or 'decode_base64' (for base64 encoding). This lack of context leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.

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