ADITUS Developer Portal MCP

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial non-obvious details: large response bodies are truncated, leading '/api' or '/v1' prefixes are ignored, path parameter spellings are flexible, and query strings select among duplicate recordings with an `{ ambiguous: true, candidates: [...] }` fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose and accepted input form are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence covers a necessary edge case: path flexibility, prefix stripping, duplicate recordings, ambiguity handling, and no-match behavior. The description is dense but every clause earns its place.

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 output schema, the description still specifies what the response contains, mentions truncation and where full text lives, gives the exact ambiguity payload shape, and describes the no-match error behavior. The agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema documents the single `endpoint` parameter with examples, but the description adds decisive parsing semantics: it accepts either an id or 'METHOD /path', tolerates any path-parameter spelling, ignores leading API prefixes, and explains how a query string disambiguates duplicate recordings. This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 'Full contract of one endpoint' and enumerates the exact contents (method, URL, auth, query/header params, request body example, example responses), so the agent knows precisely what operation is performed. It is clearly distinct from search/list tools: it takes an endpoint id or 'METHOD /path' and returns the detailed contract.

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 tells the agent where the input comes from ('endpoint id from search/list'), how to resolve duplicate recordings, and what to do on ambiguity ('call again with one of the candidate ids'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of fully explicit alternative guidance.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is Markdown and that supplying a section narrows the response, which is modest but real extra context.

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 tight sentences with the resource stated first and the guide taxonomy and section behavior following. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return format is Markdown and that output can be narrowed by section. Both parameters are addressed, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it defines the special 'micro-frontend' contract contents and explains that module guides like 'guidelines'/'webhooks' are sourced from the API reference, plus that a section heading (or slug) returns only that part.

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 the specific resource (an integration guide returned as Markdown) and enumerates the guide families it serves, so an agent can tell it apart from list_endpoints/search_docs. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Implies usage by explaining what 'micro-frontend' versus module guides such as 'guidelines'/'webhooks' contain, which helps an agent pick the right guide id. However it never states when to prefer this tool over search_docs or get_endpoint, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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 readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits pagination/volume behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence covering scope and return shape, followed by a short routing directive. Front-loaded, no filler, every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what the agent needs: what it lists, what comes back, and where the id comes from. Only the absence of any note on result size or pagination leaves a small gap.

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% and the schema itself gives the meaning and an example ('ticket-purchase-registration'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the source of the id (list_modules), a minor supplement rather than new semantics.

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 (list) and resource (endpoints) scoped to 'one module', and enumerates the returned fields (id, method, path, sub-group, summary). This distinguishes it cleanly from list_modules and the singular get_endpoint without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and provenance for the argument: 'Use the module id from list_modules.' That is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_endpoint or search_docs, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that, explaining the semantics of the 'direction' field (inbound vs outbound) and mentioning that documentation URLs and integration guides are included.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers the core content, with the module fields listed first and the integration-guide addendum second. It is efficient, though the parenthetical definition of direction makes it slightly long for one sentence.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so adequately: modules with direction, endpoint counts, doc URLs, plus integration guides. It is complete enough to call correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter information is expected or missing.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('All top-level ADITUS API modules') and enumerates the returned fields (direction, endpoint counts, documentation URLs, integration guides). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_endpoints or get_endpoint.

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?

Usage is implied as a discovery/entry-point call ('top-level modules', 'also lists the integration guides'), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named for the cases where the agent should instead drill into endpoints or guides.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: German search terms are mapped to English vocabulary via a generated language layer, and results are 'ranked hits' with ids for downstream lookups. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly written sentences: the search scope and targets, the bilingual language layer, and the return format. No filler, every sentence earns its place, and the most important information—what the tool searches—comes first.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return value ('ranked hits with ids usable in get_endpoint / get_guide'), which is sufficient for an agent to know how to use the tool. It is missing nothing critical, though it could briefly note that limit controls result count; the schema already covers that, so no real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying the search corpus, the bilingual search behavior, and the output's usefulness for subsequent get_endpoint / get_guide calls. This is more informative than the schema's terse parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the action ('Full-text search') and the exact resources searched ('API modules, endpoints (name, path, description) and the integration guides'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling retrieval tools by stating that returned ids are usable in get_endpoint / get_guide, making its role in the tool family unambiguous.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: search is across modules, endpoints, and guides, and results are designed to feed into get_endpoint / get_guide. It implies the tool is for discovery when an agent does not yet have a specific id, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly contrast with list_endpoints/list_modules.

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