turva-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns static JSON and changes nothing, plus the return includes measurement date and verification links, enriching the annotation-only picture.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place by providing purpose, use cases, and behavior without filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (score, sub-scores, date, links), when to use it, and its non-mutating nature. No important contextual gap remains.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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 returns turva.dev's agent-readiness score from an independent public scanner, including sub-scores and verification links. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings that cover principles, security evidence, and services.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'when a user asks how turva.dev scores, whether its claims are verifiable, or what proof backs the audit service.' It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds 'returns static JSON and changes nothing,' reinforcing the safety profile and specifying the return format. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though somewhat redundant.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the primary function and content, second gives usage guidance, third clarifies read-only behavior. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content, usage, and safety. It is fully self-contained and leaves no significant gaps 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter details. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the return content and behavior instead.

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 returns 'turva.dev's engagement principles' and lists them, using a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_services or get_security_evidence by focusing on engagement principles.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this when a user asks how turva.dev works with clients or what rules an engagement follows.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Read-only: returns static JSON and changes nothing' mainly reinforces them. It adds the 'static JSON' return format detail, which is mild extra behavior context, but no deeper operational traits (e.g., caching, freshness limits) are disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core return value in the first and usage guidance in the second. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, for which domain, which data sources, and when to use it. Nothing necessary to select and invoke it is missing.

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?

Tool takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description need not elaborate on parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource: latest public web-security scan results for turva.dev's own domain, naming the scan providers (Hardenize, Internet.nl site and mail). It also distinguishes itself from get_agent_readiness by calling out 'beyond agent-readiness scores'.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool when a user asks about turva.dev's own security posture or wants evidence beyond agent-readiness scores. It provides a clear context but doesn't formally name sibling tools or state when not to use it, aside from implying agent-readiness belongs to another tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying 'returns static JSON and changes nothing,' confirming the response is fixed content with no side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is detailed but not bloated. The long enumeration of services and pricing terms is necessary to convey the scope of the catalog, and the usage guidance and read-only note are placed after the main content.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a read-only static resource, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the returned content, the engagement/pricing detail, when to invoke the tool, and its side-effect-free behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant detail about what the returned catalog contains, though it does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Returns turva.dev's service catalog' — and enumerates the included services, pricing models, and add-ons. This clearly distinguishes get_services from siblings like get_agent_readiness or get_principles, which target narrower topics.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a user asks what turva.dev offers, what it costs, or how an engagement works.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous and actionable.

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