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. The description adds 'Safely' which suggests some safety mechanism (like sandboxing or validation) beyond what annotations indicate. However, it doesn't specify what 'safely' entails - whether it prevents infinite loops, handles errors gracefully, or restricts dangerous operations. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds some context but not rich behavioral details.

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: 'Safely evaluate mathematical expressions'. Every word earns its place - 'Safely' adds behavioral context, 'evaluate' specifies the action, and 'mathematical expressions' defines the resource. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain output format (no output schema exists), doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings, and could elaborate more on what 'safely' means. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves contextual questions unanswered for optimal agent usage.

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 the parameter 'expression' fully documented as 'Mathematical expression to evaluate (e.g., '2 + 3 * 4')'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Safely evaluate mathematical expressions' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('mathematical expressions'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_percentage' or 'convert_number_base' by focusing on general expression evaluation rather than specific calculations or conversions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all mathematical siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 siblings like 'calculate_percentage', 'convert_number_base', and 'convert_roman_numerals', there's no indication of when this general evaluation tool is preferable to more specialized ones. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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