RoxyAPI Docs MCP Server (keyless, for coding agents)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are ranked and carry source URLs, and a documented retry-on-miss policy. It stops short of describing pagination or result-count behavior (partly covered by the `limit` schema field).

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 purpose and call-first directive are front-loaded, and the retry advice closes usefully. The long enumeration of SDK languages and feature areas is the only slightly listy stretch, though it legitimately tells the agent what queries will match.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering return shape, and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to establish purpose, when to call, and query phrasing, all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this search correctly is missing.

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 schema already defines all three parameters, including the compact-format token savings and the limit cap. The description reinforces the `query` semantic ("Pass the user question verbatim as `query`"), which largely duplicates the schema's "whole question works better than guessed keywords", so it adds only marginal meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ("Search the RoxyAPI knowledge base") plus the return shape ("ranked documentation snippets, each with a source URL"). It then enumerates the covered content domains (endpoints, SDK languages, WordPress plugin, auth, UI components, integration guides), so an agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried without opening the 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 trigger ("Call this first whenever you need to integrate RoxyAPI into an app") and concrete intents that select it: picking an endpoint or SDK method, finding parameters, authenticating, wiring a feature end to end. It also adds a recovery policy ("If the first results miss, rephrase once and retry"), leaving little to inference; with no sibling tools, exclusions are not applicable.

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