IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (implying potential mutation, though parsing is typically read-only) and a title 'Url-parse', but no destructiveHint or other behavioral hints. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations—it clarifies the parsing action but doesn't disclose error handling, output format, or whether it validates URL syntax. With annotations covering basic safety (no destructive hint), the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 with zero waste—'Parse URL into components' directly conveys the core action without extraneous details. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple parsing tool, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the purpose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, simple parsing function), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or examples. With no output schema, the agent must infer the return format from the description alone, which is insufficient for full understanding. However, for a basic utility tool among many siblings, it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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, with the 'url' parameter fully documented as 'URL to parse'. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Parse URL into components' clearly states the verb ('parse') and resource ('URL'), specifying the transformation action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'decode_url' (which decodes encoded URLs) or 'fang_url' (which defangs URLs) by focusing on component extraction rather than decoding or security transformation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what components are extracted (e.g., protocol, host, path), keeping it at a 4 rather than a 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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'parse_url' over 'decode_url' (for decoding percent-encoded URLs) or 'fang_url' (for defanging malicious URLs), nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases. Without any context for selection, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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