idea-reality-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses data sources (GitHub + HN for quick, 'all sources' for deep), performance characteristics ('fast'), and output structure ('signal score, evidence, similar projects, and pivot hints'). Lacks explicit safety classification (read-only) or rate limit warnings.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage triggers, args, returns). Front-loaded with core function. The trigger phrases list is somewhat lengthy but earns its place by providing multilingual pattern matching. Args section is concise and informative.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers invocation triggers, input semantics (for 2/3 params), operational modes, and return values. The Returns section substitutes for a structured output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It excellently documents 'idea_text' (natural-language description) and 'depth' (enumerated values with behavioral context: GitHub+HN vs all sources). However, it completely omits the 'lang' parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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, actionable purpose: 'Check if a product idea already exists before building it.' Uses clear verb+resource construction (check + product idea). With no sibling tools present, no differentiation is required.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance including specific scenarios ('when users discuss new project ideas, ask about competition...') and concrete trigger phrases in both English and Chinese ('has anyone built', '有沒有人做過'). Provides clear pattern-matching signals for the agent.

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