RAGMap MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. 'Explain' suggests a read operation but is not explicit.

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 of 5 words, which is overly terse. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail about inputs, outputs, and behavior. The agent would need additional context to use it correctly.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain the input, output format, or any preconditions, making it insufficient for proper use.

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 single parameter 'name' is not explained in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent has no indication what value 'name' should take (e.g., server name, hostname, ID). This is a critical gap for a required parameter.

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 'Explain RAGMap scoring for a server' clearly indicates the action (explain) and the subject (scoring for a server), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rag_find_servers or rag_top_servers. However, it lacks specificity on what the explanation entails (e.g., textual summary, breakdown).

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, or any prerequisites (e.g., server must exist, scoring already computed). The agent is left without context for appropriate use.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only or safety. The phrase 'search/filter' implies a read operation, but this is not made explicit, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 very concise (11 words), but it sacrifices essential details about parameters and usage. It is appropriately front-loaded but does not earn its place given the complexity of the tool.

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?

With 12 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to provide any context about how to construct queries, what results look like, or how filters interact.

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 adds no information about any of the 12 parameters. The agent cannot determine the meaning or purpose of parameters like 'minScore', 'transport', or 'categories' from the description 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 clearly states the tool searches/filters RAG-related MCP servers from a specific subregistry. It distinguishes from siblings like rag_get_server (individual server) and rag_top_servers (by ranking). However, it could be more precise about the subregistry context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rag_top_servers or rag_get_server. The description lacks any context about selection criteria or when filtering is appropriate.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get copy-ready...' without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. Since the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action, transparency is very low.

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 unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical details without becoming verbose. The front-loading of 'Get copy-ready' is effective.

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 minimal input schema (no parameter descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide essential context. It does not mention what the returned config looks like, potential error cases, or examples. The tool is underdocumented, leaving the agent without sufficient information for reliable 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?

The input schema defines one parameter 'name' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., server name, config name) or any valid format. The agent cannot determine how to use this parameter correctly based on the provided information.

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 'Get' and the resource 'copy-ready Claude Desktop and generic MCP host config for a server.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like rag_explain_score or rag_top_servers, which have different purposes. However, it could be more specific about what exactly the config contains (e.g., JSON format, keys).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as rag_get_server or rag_list_categories. The description implies it's for obtaining config snippets, but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., server existence) or situations where it should not be used. The agent would need to infer usage from the tool name and minimal description.

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 implies a read operation but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, whether the record is cached, or what happens if the name does not exist. The mention of 'latest version' hints at versioning but provides no further explanation.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key usage (fetch by name, latest version). It lacks information about return structure or error handling, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete. It would benefit from a note about when to use this tool instead of rag_find_servers.

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%, so the description adds meaning by specifying that the parameter 'name' uniquely identifies the server. However, it does not elaborate on format, constraints beyond minLength, or examples. This partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 (Fetch), resource (server record), and the criterion (by name, latest version). It succinctly differentiates from sibling tools like rag_find_servers which likely search with filters.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rag_find_servers or rag_top_servers. No context is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate use cases.

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 present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is truthful but minimal.

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 is front-loaded and efficient. Every word is necessary, and there is 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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks any details about return format or behavior (e.g., whether the list is sorted, whether it can be empty). For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool requires no input, and the description correctly conveys that.

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 all RAG categories known to RAGMap, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like rag_top_servers or rag_get_server, which have 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks any context about scenarios or prerequisites.

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?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'smart defaults' but does not explain what these defaults are, how recommendations are generated, or any non-obvious behaviors like caching, rate limits, or side effects. The statement is too vague to be informative.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of informativeness. It does not front-load critical information or structure details usefully. A tool with 8 parameters needs more than a single vague sentence.

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 complexity (8 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not cover return format, pagination, the meaning of 'top recommended', or any filtering logic. The agent would have to guess or call other tools to understand its behavior.

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 8 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. 'Smart defaults' hints at some default behavior but provides no details on how parameters like 'limit', 'minScore', or 'categories' affect the result. The agent receives no added semantic value beyond the schema's bare names.

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 'get' and the resource 'top recommended retriever MCP servers', adding the qualifier 'retriever' which helps distinguish from non-retriever servers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rag_find_servers' which may have overlapping functionality.

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 its siblings such as 'rag_find_servers' or 'rag_get_server'. The description lacks any context about the appropriate use case or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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