IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's 'decrypt' action (a transformation, not a pure read). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify error handling, output format, or performance characteristics. 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (decryption with two parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations covering safety, it meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('encryptedText' and 'password'). The description doesn't add extra semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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: 'Decrypt Ansible Vault encrypted text'. It specifies the verb ('decrypt') and resource ('Ansible Vault encrypted text'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'encrypt_ansible_vault', though the distinction is implied through the verb choice.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing encrypted text and a password), nor does it reference the sibling encryption tool for context. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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