IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating potential side effects, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'extended' entails (e.g., handling more entities, different encoding schemes), nor does it detail error handling or output format. The description doesn't contradict annotations but offers little 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 a single, efficient phrase: 'Extended HTML entity encoding/decoding'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. While concise, it risks under-specification by omitting key details.

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 (encoding/decoding operations) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'extended' means, provide examples, or describe return values. With annotations only covering read-only status, more context is needed for effective use.

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 fully documents both parameters ('text' and 'operation' with enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as examples of input text or details on encoding/decoding behavior. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 'Extended HTML entity encoding/decoding' states the general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the operation type (encode/decode) and target (HTML entities), but doesn't clarify what 'extended' means or how it differs from sibling tools like 'encode_html' and 'decode_html'. The purpose is understandable but vague about 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'encode_html' or 'decode_html', nor does it specify scenarios where this 'extended' version is preferred. Without usage context, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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