forkast-mcp-docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful scope ('Forkast documentation space') but does not disclose potential behaviors like result size, pagination, or performance characteristics. This is minimal but non-zero context.

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 no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Retrieve') and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does and its scope. There are no hidden complexities or missing contextual elements that would require elaboration.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource ('every document in the Forkast documentation space'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_doc (specific document) and search_query/search_title (search functionality), making the purpose 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?

The description clearly implies this tool is for bulk retrieval, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool names offer implicit contrast, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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 only states the basic action and provides no details on return format, error behavior (e.g., if ID not found), authentication requirements, or other side effects. For a read operation, more context could be given without needing annotations.

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?

It is a single, concise sentence (10 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is adequate, but it omits useful context such as what the returned document object looks like or how errors are surfaced. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent must infer the return structure from the tool name and sibling context.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'docId' as 'The Archbee document ID', and the description essentially repeats that. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new semantic value, but it is not lacking either.

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 ('Retrieve') and the specific resource ('a single document by its Archbee document ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_all_docs (retrieve all) and search_query/search_title (search by criteria).

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 usage is implied by 'by its Archbee document ID' — an agent can infer to use this when the document ID is known. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_all_docs or search tools.

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, so description must disclose behavior. It only states 'full-text search' without mentioning whether it is read-only, what it returns, pagination, or any access restrictions. The read-only nature is implied by 'search' but not explicitly stated, and no additional behavioral context is given. Minimal 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?

One concise sentence with no filler. All words contribute meaning.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description gives the essential purpose and scope. However, it does not describe the return format or explicitly contrast with search_title, leaving an ambiguity about exact behavior. Overall adequate.

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% (query: 'Search query text'). The tool description adds little beyond that, though the phrase 'full-text' clarifies that the query is matched against document content. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action (full-text search) and target resource (Forkast documentation content). The qualifier 'full-text' distinguishes it from sibling search_title, which likely searches only titles. High clarity.

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 this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for searching documentation content, but does not mention when not to use it or name search_title as an alternative for title-only searches. Only implied usage.

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 only says 'Search', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.

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 no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 1-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it does not explain what the tool returns or how it differs from 'search_query', which leaves a gap for an agent choosing between tools. Given no output schema, a bit more context would be valuable.

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 coverage is 100% (query is described as 'Title search text'). The description adds a slight nuance by stating 'by document title', which confirms the query parameter maps to a title. This matches schema semantics, so the baseline of 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('Forkast documentation'), and a scope ('by document title'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'search_query', which presumably searches content, and from 'get_doc', which retrieves a specific document.

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 'search_query'. The description implies usage for title-based searches but does not provide context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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