Compoid MCP

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details beyond the creation act. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, validation of slug/title, or effects on existing data. With no annotation support, this falls short of the burden to explain 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 a single concise sentence with no superfluous wording. It is front-loaded with the action, but given the tool's complexity, brevity alone does not make it well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 9 parameters, none described, and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal statement of purpose, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding and usage context, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. It does not explain required fields, defaults, or format expectations, so the agent has no additional semantic guidance.

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 creates a new community on Compoid, using the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'community'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like Compoid_create_record and Compoid_update_community.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updating an existing community or searching communities. It lacks any context for prerequisites or conditions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and record types without mentioning side effects, required prerequisites (e.g., existing community), permissions, reversibility, or the role of file_upload. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It front-loads the primary action and includes an informative parenthetical. However, it is somewhat under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem. It earns every word.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions), the description is severely inadequate. It lacks critical context such as how to construct a valid record, the relationship between file_upload and the record, or any guidance on required fields. The presence of an output schema is helpful but does not offset the missing usage context.

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 covers 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no explanations for parameter usage. The description fails to compensate; it does not explain community_id, file_upload, creators, resource_type, or any other parameter. The only vague hint is the record types, but this is insufficient for understanding the required inputs.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Compoid record'. It also lists the content types (images, videos, papers, articles, analysis), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_record and create_community. Despite not explicitly referencing alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous and 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 implies usage for creating new records, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like upload_file or update_record. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list. This is implied usage rather than direct 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the zip archive output but does not explain what happens if files are not open access, whether the tool fails gracefully, or any side effects like file creation at output_path. This is a significant gap for a download operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key condition. There is no redundant information, and every word adds value.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations) and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address error handling, output details beyond the zip archive, or the role of output_path. An output schema exists but is not provided, so the description must stand alone and falls short.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does not explain the purpose of work_id, filename, or output_path. While 'record files' loosely ties to work_id, without explicit parameter details, an agent cannot correctly invoke the tool.

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 downloads record files as a zip archive, with a specific condition (open access). The verb 'Download' and resource 'record files' are explicit, and the action is distinct from sibling tools like upload_file or search_records.

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 implies usage when needing to download record files, and the 'if available through open access' condition provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when files are restricted or when using upload_file for the inverse operation.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It only says 'Get detailed information', which implies a read operation but does not disclose return format, error handling, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, more detail is expected.

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, front-loaded sentence that contains all necessary information without extraneous words. It is efficient and easily parsed.

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 is simple (1 parameter), has an output schema to cover return values, and the description clarifies the parameter semantics. It is adequate for a straightforward lookup, though it could mention error cases or validation, but these are not critical given the low complexity.

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 1 parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by stating the parameter can be a 'Compoid ID or OAI', which clarifies the accepted value. However, it does not elaborate on formats or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema 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 states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific community', with a specific identifier mechanism ('by its Compoid ID or OAI'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_communities and get_record_details by specifying the action and target.

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 implies the tool is for direct lookup by an identifier, but does not explicitly state when to use this over search_communities or get_record_details. The mention of 'specific community' and identifier hints at use cases, but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, error behavior, or authentication requirements. It adds no behavioral context beyond the function's name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, target, and identifier options efficiently.

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 is a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, so the description needn't detail return values. It adequately explains what the tool does and how to identify the target, though it omits potential error conditions or authorization notes.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that the 'work_id' parameter accepts either a Compoid ID or an OAI. This gives meaning to an otherwise opaque parameter name, though it does not provide format examples or further constraints.

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 function: 'Get detailed information about a specific record' and specifies the selection criteria ('by its Compoid ID or OAI'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_records (which lists records) and get_community_details (which targets communities).

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 phrase 'specific record' implies this tool is for retrieving details of a single known entity, as opposed to searching. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Search for communities' and provides no details about read-only nature, sorting, pagination, or edge cases. This is essentially no transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is also under-specified. It does not structure or convey any value beyond the tool name, making it insufficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 six parameters, one required, and an output schema, yet the description provides no context on how to use it, what results look like, or how it relates to other tools. It is severely incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 lists six parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain any of them. It adds no meaning to query, sort, limit, title, description, or access_status, leaving semantics to be inferred from names alone.

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 ('Search') and the resource ('communities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_records or get_community_details. However, it is minimal and does not specify the search scope or criteria, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool over others.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states 'Search for records.' It does not mention return format, pagination, search scope (e.g., metadata vs. full-text), permissions, or any 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and provides a clear resource list. It contains no unnecessary 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?

Despite having an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description is too sparse for a tool with 15 parameters. It fails to mention that you can filter by many fields, or provide any guidance on constructing an effective search.

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 zero description coverage for its 15 parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning to any of them. It does not explain the query format, how filters like keywords or date_from work, or how parameters interact.

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 searches for records in Compoid, listing specific content types (images, videos, papers, articles, analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_communities and get_record_details by focusing on 'records' and the action 'search'.

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 implies usage when a search of records is needed, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it does not compare with get_record_details for retrieving a known record.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'update' and partial updates, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as validation, side effects, permissions, or whether the response confirms changes. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded. Both sentences earn their place, with no waste. However, it may be too terse, missing opportunities to add useful context without bloating length.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete for a complex mutation tool. It does not cover field meanings, prerequisites (e.g., community_id existence), or behavior on invalid inputs. Although an output schema exists, the description should still provide more operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating optional fields are partial updates, but does not explain any individual parameter semantics (e.g., slug uniqueness, visibility options, member_policy values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's field names.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'update' with resource 'community on Compoid', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like Compoid_create_community and Compoid_update_record. It states exactly what the tool does.

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?

Provides clear guidance on partial updates ('Only supply the fields you want to change'), implying that omitted fields remain unchanged. It does not explicitly compare to create or other update tools, but the context is clear enough for most use cases.

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?

The description discloses that the tool can update metadata only or replace both file and metadata, hinting at the destructive nature of providing file_upload. With no annotations, it covers some behavioral traits but leaves out permissions, return values, and how unspecified metadata fields are handled, creating ambiguity.

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 purpose, and contains no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and is a mutation tool, the description is too sparse. It leaves open questions about partial updates, response structure, and file upload specifics. Although an output schema exists, it is not referenced in the description, leaving the behavioral contract incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. It only groups fields implicitly as metadata vs. file_upload, which adds minimal meaning beyond schema titles. It fails to clarify required work_id or value formats, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 states the tool updates an existing Compoid record, using the specific verb 'update' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_record by specifying 'existing' and from update_community by specifying 'record'.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to update an existing record. It also explains two distinct usage modes (metadata only vs. metadata and file replacement). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like Compoid_create_record for new records, so exclusions are not stated.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input format (data URI) and the output (server-side path), which is the core behavioral contract. It does not mention errors or limits, but the main behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, input format, and output usage.

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 simple upload tool with two parameters and an output schema, this description covers purpose, input format, and output usage. It also ties into sibling tools. Missing error handling or limits, but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the exact format for file_data (data URI), which is critical. Filename is not explained, but the name is self-explanatory and optional.

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 function: 'Upload a file to the Compoid MCP server.' It also explains the return value (server-side path) and how it relates to sibling tools, making it distinct from other operations.

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 explains when to use this tool: to obtain a file_upload path for Compoid_create_record or Compoid_update_record. This provides direct integration guidance and differentiates it from download_files and other siblings.

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