Frisian MCP (Django)

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

The description discloses that 'all reads and writes are real and persistent,' which hints at destructive potential but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, this provides moderate transparency but is incomplete.

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 concise with two sentences, but it is not front-loaded with a clear purpose. It efficiently conveys the scope but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a generic action/params structure, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to invoke actions, expected values for params, or return behavior, leaving 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and already describes the action and params parameters. The tool description adds some context about capability groups but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 describes the tool as a 'Live working demo' and lists capability groups but does not state a specific action or resource it performs. It is vague about what the tool actually does, serving more as a menu than a clear purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like docs, install, or troubleshooting. The description does not mention contexts or alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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 full burden. It describes actions but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs. The tool appears to be read-only, but that is not stated.

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 concise and front-loaded with 'Start here'. It lists all actions in a single compact sentence. Could be improved with bullet points for readability, but no wasted words.

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 role as a documentation browser with an action-driven design, the description covers the main actions adequately. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists. Lacks behavioral context like read-only nature, but otherwise sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a brief overview of each action, but the schema already provides enum values and descriptions for the action parameter, and details for params. The description does not add significant new semantic depth.

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 explicitly states it is a documentation and server guide, and lists distinct actions (about, getting_started, etc.) that clarify its purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools (demo, install, troubleshooting) by being the entry point for documentation.

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 says 'Start here', suggesting primary usage. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use certain actions.

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 full burden. It states that each action returns files changed, organized by version, and that a query enables semantic search. This provides basic behavioral insight but lacks details on side effects, auth, or rate limits. Adequate for a read-only guide 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and context. Every sentence is informative, with no redundancy or filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, actions, and return type.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value (files changed, organized by version). It also covers semantic search and action listing. While it could specify the return format more precisely, it is reasonably complete for a guidance 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds value by revealing that the 'params' object can accept a 'query' for semantic search, which is not in the schema. This compensates for the schema's omission, making parameter semantics more actionable.

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: 'Installation guides for frisian-mcp integrations (Django framework tier).' It lists specific actions (nautobot, netbox, paperless, edx) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (demo, docs, troubleshooting) by focusing solely on installation guidance.

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 when to use this tool: for installation guides. It gives usage hints like 'Omit or use 'help' to list all available actions' and mentions semantic search. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings 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?

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that actions return diagnostic guides and relevant files, and that semantic search via a query is possible. However, it does not state whether operations are read-only, any side effects, error handling, or rate limits.

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 concise (three sentences) but lacks a clear front-loaded structure. It mixes the purpose with action listing and a usage hint, which could be more logically organized.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail. It omits output format, pagination, error cases, and the relationship between the 'query' mention and the schema's params object is unclear. The low completeness may hinder correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about passing a query for semantic search, but this contradicts the schema's param descriptions that state each action has no parameters. This inconsistency reduces clarity about how to use the params object.

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 states the tool provides troubleshooting guides for specific integrations and mentions each action returns diagnostic guides. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools (demo, docs, install) beyond the name and context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like demo, docs, or install. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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