IT Tools MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'normalize' implies a transformation, it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid inputs, or what the output format looks like. The examples ('remove dots, plus aliases, etc.') hint at behavior but don't provide complete transparency about edge cases or limitations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence with parenthetical examples) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage context. The complexity is low, so the gaps are less critical than they would be for a more complex tool.

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 (the 'email' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps either.

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: 'Normalize email addresses' with specific examples of transformations ('remove dots, plus aliases, etc.'). It uses a specific verb ('normalize') and identifies the resource ('email addresses'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'slugify_text' or 'format_phone' that might also process text data.

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 any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to sibling tools like 'slugify_text' or 'format_phone' that might handle similar text normalization tasks. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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