Analyze a Duck Framework feature request and create an implementation plan. Returns relevant documentation to read and a suggested order of operations before writing code. Use this before implementing non-trivial Duck Framework features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | ||
| version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (documentation list plus suggested order of operations) and implies it is a pre-implementation, non-mutating analysis step, but never explicitly states that it writes nothing, requires no auth, or how it treats the version parameter.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return shape and the usage trigger. No filler; only the missing parameter guidance counts against it.
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 and no annotations, so the description does a fair job explaining what comes back, but gaps remain on parameter meaning (notably version) and on side effects or prerequisites. Adequate but not complete for a planning tool with two undocumented parameters.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it barely does. The meaning of "request" can be inferred, but "version" is completely unexplained (Duck Framework version? target version?), leaving a real ambiguity for the caller.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: analyzes a Duck Framework feature request and produces an implementation plan, including docs to read and ordering of work. This clearly separates it from the doc-retrieval and scaffolding siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
"Use this before implementing non-trivial Duck Framework features" gives a clear trigger and an implicit exclusion (trivial features). It doesn't call out alternatives or what to do after the plan, but the timing guidance is unambiguous.
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.