IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, suggesting a non-read operation, which aligns with 'Generate' implying creation. The description adds the specific type ('Time-based One-Time Password'), clarifying it's TOTP rather than HOTP or other OTP methods. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or output format (though no output schema exists), leaving behavioral gaps.

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: 'Generate Time-based One-Time Password (TOTP) codes'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant words or structural issues. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to clarifying the tool's function.

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 (TOTP generation with 3 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It identifies the tool as TOTP-specific but lacks context on usage, output (e.g., code format), or error handling. With annotations covering basic safety (readOnlyHint=false), it's adequate but could be more informative for an agent.

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 parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Base32 encoded secret key'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as default values for 'digits' or 'period', or constraints like typical TOTP standards (e.g., 6 digits, 30-second period). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: 'Generate Time-based One-Time Password (TOTP) codes'. It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('TOTP codes'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_password' or 'generate_token', which are conceptually related but functionally distinct.

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 TOTP generation (e.g., two-factor authentication), prerequisites like needing a secret key, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'generate_password' (for static passwords) or 'generate_token' (for generic tokens). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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