TheRundown Documentation MCP

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: statelessness across calls, reset working directory, no writes/network/process control, output truncation at 30KB, and the sandboxed-vs-real-machine distinction. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 long but well-structured and relevant. It front-loads the core concept and safety boundary, then moves through command usage, stateless behavior, examples, and output limitations. A few points are lightly redundant (e.g., repeated advice about targeted rg/head vs cat), but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, safety, usage workflow, supported commands, path resolution, statelessness, output truncation, examples, and how to map filesystem paths back to URLs. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

The schema already describes the command parameter, but the description greatly expands on how to use it: supported commands, `--help`, chaining with `&&`, absolute paths, path-to-URL conversion, and multiple examples. This is far more actionable than the schema alone.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Run a read-only shell-like query against a virtualized, in-memory filesystem' containing TheRundown docs. It explicitly states this is not a real machine and explains that this tool is the way to read documentation pages, which distinguishes it from the search sibling.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use the search tool for broad/conceptual queries and this tool for exact keyword/regex matching, structural exploration, or full page reads. It also tells the agent to discover paths first rather than guessing, and explains how to read pages via head/cat.

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?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: search results include 'contextual content with titles and direct links,' and it explains the .mdx path convention for following up with the filesystem tool. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict behavior.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when-to-use, return format, and cross-tool follow-up with a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool, the description covers all needed context: what it searches, when to use it, what the response looks like, and how to retrieve full page content via a sibling tool. Nothing required for a correct invocation 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?

The input schema fully documents the single `query` parameter with 'Search query' at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter explanations. The description does not introduce query syntax or formatting details, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search across the TheRundown API knowledge base to find relevant information, code examples, API references, and guides.' It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling query_docs_filesystem by directing users there for full page content, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit scenarios: 'Use this tool when you need to answer questions about TheRundown API, find specific documentation, understand how features work, or locate implementation details.' It also names the alternative and the condition for using it ('If you need the full content of a specific page, use the query_docs_filesystem tool'), so there is no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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?

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context: feedback is routed to the docs team and is scoped to documentation content. It stops short of describing what happens after submission (e.g., whether a confirmation is returned, whether it creates an issue), but it does not contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral framing.

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?

Three sentences, all informative. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives concrete usage criteria, and the third excludes non-documentation feedback. No filler or redundancy; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and schema together cover the essential information: what to submit, which page, what kind of feedback, and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of detail about the post-submission result or confirmation behavior, which is not critical but would make it fully complete.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already explain 'path' (URL path without .mdx extension) and 'feedback' (clear description of the issue). The tool description reinforces the kind of feedback expected but adds no technical semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it.' It identifies the specific resource (documentation site) and the action (reporting a problem), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling query/search tools by being feedback-oriented. It also explicitly carves out what it is not for: product support or feedback about the tool/assistant.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example.' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use boundary: 'not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant.' This is strong, actionable usage direction.

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