Wikivibe MCP

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

Describes as 'Read' and 'public' but no annotation support. Missing details on auth, error handling, or response format beyond maxChars limit.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loads key information. Efficient.

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?

Covers main identification methods and maxChars. Lacks output description and error handling, but sufficient for read operation with no 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?

Description clarifies conditional logic (url OR path OR section+slug) not explicit in schema. Schema covers most params; locale and maxChars have defaults. Adds value beyond 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?

Clear verb 'Read' and resource 'article' with multiple identification methods (URL, path, section+slug). Distinguishes from sibling search/list tools.

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?

Implied usage: when you have a way to identify a specific article. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to search_articles or list_latest_articles.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies read-only behavior ('Read') but does not disclose other behavioral traits like error handling on not found, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the template is truly public. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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, concise sentence of 10 words that front-loads the primary purpose. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and 0 required parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return value structure, how to differentiate between the three identifier methods, or when locale matters. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description summarizes the parameters as 'by slug, absolute URL or localized path', which adds little beyond the schema. It does not clarify the relationship between parameters or how locale interacts with the identifying params. 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Read', the resource 'one public VibeDesign template', and the three identification methods (slug, absolute URL, localized path). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_design_templates' (which searches) and 'get_article' (different resource).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as when to use slug vs. url vs. path, or when to use the search tool instead. No explicit context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Read' (read-only) and 'public' (no auth), but omits error behavior (e.g., missing skill) and response format. This is insufficient for mutation-agnostic agents.

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?

One sentence, 12 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with verb and resource, immediately clear. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema provided. Description does not specify return structure, error handling, or which parameter takes precedence. For a 4-param tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps for 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 description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the skill is public and can be fetched by any of the three identifier parameters, but does not add semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no hint on which param to prefer).

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 the verb 'Read' with direct object 'one public... skill' and specifies identification methods (slug, absolute URL, localized path), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_article or search_skills.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., search_skills for discovering skills). The purpose is implied but not reinforced with when-not or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'list newest public canonical articles,' omitting details like ordering (assumed by date), pagination behavior (limited by max 10), rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with immediate clarity on the main action. However, it sacrifices necessary details like parameter explanations, making it only adequate in structure.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description could be complete with a few extra sentences on parameters and usage. As is, it leaves gaps: what are 'canonical' articles? What is the output format? This hampers autonomous selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' or 'locale' parameters. It does not explain that limit controls the number of articles returned or that locale filters by language. The agent must infer from default values and enum, which is inadequate.

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 lists the newest public canonical articles. The verb 'List' and resource 'newest public canonical Wikivibe articles' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like get_article (single) or search_articles (search).

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 usage for retrieving recent articles but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_articles. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided, though 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 carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('List') and specifies that only public sections with indexable articles are returned. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple list but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be improved by adding a brief note about the 'locale' parameter without sacrificing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain what information is returned (e.g., section names, IDs). It also omits the role of the 'locale' parameter. The description is insufficient for a complete understanding, especially with no annotations.

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%, yet the description does not mention the 'locale' parameter at all. The agent receives no semantic help beyond the enum values in the schema, leaving the parameter's purpose completely 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'public Wikivibe sections that contain indexable articles', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_latest_articles' or 'search_articles'. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as 'list_latest_articles' or 'search_articles'. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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?

No annotations provided. The description only mentions the tool is for 'safe' project summaries but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool calls an external API, mutates data, or requires authentication. For a recommendation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence with a clear warning, making it concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose within the space constraint.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the recommendation process, return format, or how to effectively use the 8 parameters. The warning about source code is helpful but not enough for complete understanding.

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 only 25% (2/8 parameters explained). The description lists input types (frameworks, dependencies, etc.) but adds no additional meaning for parameters like locale (default 'ru'), limit, or files. With low coverage, the description should provide more parameter guidance.

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 recommends Wikivibe AI-agent skills from a project summary, listing specific inputs (frameworks, dependencies, goals, problems). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_skills by being recommendation-focused.

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 implicitly indicates usage when a project summary is available and warns not to send source code. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like search_skills for more targeted queries.

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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the scope of articles but omits details like authentication, rate limits, read-only nature, or search behavior (e.g., full-text vs title-only).

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 a single concise sentence (18 words) that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no redundant information.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as default behavior, return format, pagination, or how the limit and locale affect results.

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 only 33% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on parameters like 'limit' or 'locale', nor does it provide usage examples or clarify their semantics 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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'public canonical Wikivibe articles', and lists specific topics (AI coding, agents, MCP, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_design_templates or search_skills.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_latest_articles or search_skills, nor are there any contextual hints about when not to use it.

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 must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only search operation, which is consistent with the tool name. However, it lacks details about result format, pagination, sorting, or any potential side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that concisely lists what is searchable. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the action 'Search'. However, it could be slightly more concise by grouping similar items.

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 complexity of a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return value structure, result ordering, or pagination. Sibling tools like search_articles might provide a more complete pattern, but this description lacks essential contextual details.

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 has 50% parameter description coverage (query, stack, category have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning to any parameters; for example, it does not explain that query is optional when other filters are used, or that locale defaults to 'ru'. The description fails to leverage schema parameters effectively.

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 identifies the tool as searching for design templates from the Wikivibe catalog, listing specific categories like templates, layouts, components. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_design_template (which retrieves a single template) and search_articles (which searches different content), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_articles or get_design_template. It simply states what it does without context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the content of results (GitHub metadata, etc.) but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The transparency is minimal beyond what the name implies.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the main purpose and key data included. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no extraneous words or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters with 50% schema coverage and no output schema. The description does not explain return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or parameter relationships. It is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 description does not elaborate on any of the six parameters. With 50% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional semantics about how parameters interact or are used, failing to compensate for the gap.

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 action 'Search' and the resource 'public Wikivibe AI-agent skills', and specifies additional metadata included (GitHub metadata, project signals, install prompts, usage rules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_articles or get_skill which handle different resources.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_articles. Usage is implied for searching skills, but no exclusion or alternative mention is provided, leading to an implied usage scenario.

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