Connect an external MCP server to Hokmah for universal tool orchestration. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant | No | default | |
| project | No | default | |
| server_url | Yes | ||
| server_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like error handling, idempotency, or side effects. The addition of 'FREE' is distracting and not functional.
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 extremely short (one sentence plus 'FREE'), which is concise but sacrifices informative content. It is not well-structured with front-loaded key 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 the tool has four parameters (two required) and an output schema, the description provides no information about return values, usage, or setup steps. It is severely under-specified for a connection tool.
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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (tenant, project, server_url, server_name), leaving the agent without meaning beyond the schema types.
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 'Connect' and the resource 'external MCP server to Hokmah', indicating the tool's purpose. It somewhat distinguishes from sibling tools like hokmah_connect_project by specifying 'external MCP server', but the differentiation is not strong.
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 alternatives (e.g., hokmah_connect_project). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing impact, connecting external MCP, connecting project, generating code, and generating tests. No two tools overlap in function, and descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'hokmah_verb_noun' with snake_case. Verbs are descriptive and imperative, and the prefix is uniform, making the naming predictable.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers analysis, connections, and generation without being bloated or insufficient for its apparent purpose.
The tool set covers core workflows: analysis, project setup, code and test generation. Missing features like graph querying or connection management are minor gaps, but the surface is largely complete for the domain.