mcp-docs-server

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

While annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/safety properties, the description adds crucial behavioral context about partial failure handling ('failed pages include an error message rather than failing the whole batch') and return format ('Returns an array of results'), which are not disclosed in structured fields.

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 deliver purpose, sibling comparison, and error behavior without redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch...'), efficiently structured so every clause provides distinct value.

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 rich annotations covering safety/idempotency and complete schema coverage, the description adequately compensates for missing output schema by describing the return structure and partial failure behavior. No additional context needed for this straightforward batch retrieval 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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('Array of Mapbox documentation page URLs...'), the schema fully documents the urls parameter. The description references 'max 20' but does not add semantic meaning, examples, or format details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage 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 uses specific verbs ('Fetch') with clear resource scope ('full content of multiple Mapbox documentation pages') and quantity constraints ('max 20'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_document_tool by stating it handles 'multiple' pages vs single calls.

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?

Explicitly states efficiency advantage ('More efficient than calling get_document_tool multiple times'), providing clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over its sibling. The max 20 constraint also signals when to avoid this tool (for >20 docs).

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?

Adds workflow sequencing context (use after index retrieval) and scope ('full content') beyond annotations. Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than repeating safety traits.

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 with zero waste: main action front-loaded, followed by workflow context, then sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Complete for a simple single-parameter fetch tool. Annotations cover behavioral safety; schema covers inputs. Minor gap regarding return value format (HTML vs markdown), but sufficient given the tool's straightforward purpose.

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%, so the schema fully documents the URL parameter including format constraints. Description references 'by URL' but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) + resource (Mapbox documentation page) + scope (full content by URL). Clearly distinguishes from sibling by contrasting single-page vs. batch operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('after get_latest_mapbox_docs_tool to follow a link') and provides the exact alternative tool for different use cases ('For fetching multiple pages at once, use batch_get_documents_tool instead').

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the search scope across multiple documentation sources and the ranked result format (titles, URLs, descriptions). No contradictions with 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?

The description is three concise sentences: first states purpose and scope, second describes output, third directs to a sibling. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality: what it searches, what it returns (ranked results with metadata), and how to proceed for full content. No critical gaps.

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 covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'keyword or natural language query' which matches the schema's description. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 it searches Mapbox documentation by keyword or natural language query, specifying the exact resources covered (API reference, GL JS, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning get_document_tool for fetching full content.

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 explains when to use this tool (searching docs) and directs to get_document_tool for content retrieval. It does not explicitly exclude the other sibling (batch_get_documents_tool), but the guidance is clear for the primary use case.

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