Every link on a page's sections — buttons and text links — with the key uichemy_set_link takes, where it points now, and any destination written into the LAYOUT itself (a phone number, an email, a map) that has no key and cannot be changed from here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageName | No | ||
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that some destinations are baked into the LAYOUT (phone, email, map), carry no key, and cannot be changed from this tool. That is real behavioral value beyond the structured hints, though it says nothing about pagination or return volume.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned and folds the constraint into an em-dash aside. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly run-on but not padded.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what each returned link contains (key, current target, layout-baked destination). The main shortfall is the unexplained required projectId, which leaves the calling 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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions projectId or pageName. 'A page's sections' loosely gestures at pageName, but projectId — the required parameter — is entirely unexplained.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource (list links on a page's sections), scopes it to buttons and text links, and explicitly ties it to the sibling uichemy_set_link by naming the key that tool consumes. An agent can distinguish this from other list_* tools 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?
The reference to 'the key uichemy_set_link takes' plus 'cannot be changed from here' implicitly frames the workflow (read here, mutate via set_link) and sets a boundary on what this tool can alter. It does not, however, state an explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative condition beyond that implicit pairing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
