RoxyAPI Docs MCP Server (keyless, for coding agents)

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: the scope of the knowledge base, the output structure (ranked snippets with source URLs), and the expectation that the query should be passed verbatim. This goes beyond what annotations provide and contains no contradictions.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence earns its place: it states the function, lists coverage areas, gives when-to-use guidance, and explains query strategy. It is well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded, and there is no fluff.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return format (ranked snippets with URLs), content scope, and troubleshooting behavior (rephrase/retry). Combined with the self-documenting input schema, the agent has all needed information to invoke 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 input schema already describes all three parameters (query, limit, compact) with helpful details. The description strengthens this by explicitly instructing to pass the user question verbatim as `query`, which is not in the schema. This adds real semantic value for parameter usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('RoxyAPI knowledge base') and the return format ('ranked documentation snippets, each with a source URL'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from any potential alternative by stating it covers API endpoints, SDK usage, auth, and integration guides.

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 states when to call it ('Call this first whenever you need to integrate RoxyAPI into an app') and enumerates concrete use cases. It also provides retry guidance ('If the first results miss, rephrase once and retry'), which is actionable and valuable.

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