RevoGrid DataGrid MCP

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as return format, filtering behavior, or limitations. It only states the scope ('runnable or live examples') and provides no information about how the search behaves, what results look like, or any side effects. This leaves agents guessing about operational details.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it immediately clear. This is an example of efficient, concise writing.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too brief to provide adequate context for an agent to use it correctly. It does not explain how parameters like surface, framework, or requiresPro affect results, nor what 'runnable or live' means in practice. This under-specification is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the tool description provides no explanation of any parameter meanings. With 6 parameters including enums for surface and framework, the lack of semantic guidance is a major gap. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of 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 tool searches for runnable or live RevoGrid examples, using a specific verb ('search') and resource. The word 'only' differentiates it from sibling tool search_revogrid_docs, which presumably searches documentation.

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 implies this tool is exclusively for examples (using 'only') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison with sibling tools like search_revogrid_docs, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (get), which implies a read-only operation, but adds no additional context such as return format, version handling, or potential limitations. This is a minimal disclosure with little value beyond the obvious.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, similar to the high-scoring example. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a schema with minimal parameter information. The description is too brief to provide complete context: it does not explain what the upgrade notes look like, how versions are formatted, or how the optional 'framework' parameter affects results. This makes the description inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The description mentions 'between versions' which hints at fromVersion/toVersion, but it does not explain the meaning of any parameters, especially 'framework', which is an enum. The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving all parameters effectively undocumented.

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 gets upgrade notes between RevoGrid versions, specifying the action ('get') and the resource ('upgrade notes'). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools (find_examples, resolve_feature_matrix) that focus on other aspects.

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 implies the tool should be used when needing upgrade notes, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear from the name and purpose, but no alternatives are referenced.

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 must carry the full disclosure burden. It explains the tool's purpose but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, any permissions required, error behavior, or the format of the returned learning resource. This is a significant gap for a lookup tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words or fluff. It gets straight to the point and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description gives only the high-level purpose and omits details about parameter semantics, required vs optional fields, and the exact response structure. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 description does not mention any of the three parameters (featureName, version, framework). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining their meaning or how they affect the resolution. The enum for framework is the only schema-provided semantic, but the description adds nothing.

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 resolves whether a RevoGrid feature exists, its Pro status, and where to learn it. The verb 'Resolve' and the specific resource 'RevoGrid feature' distinguish it from sibling tools like find_examples or search_revogrid_docs, which focus on different aspects.

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 implies the tool is for feature matrix lookups but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names. This is clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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 carries the full burden. It only states that the tool 'searches' but does not describe what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there are limits or pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is a minimal disclosure for a search tool.

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 with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose; there is no wasted content or verbose phrasing.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only 12 words. It does not explain return values, how to use the various filtering parameters, or when to select this tool over siblings. It is severely under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the 7 parameters. It does not explain the meaning of surface, docTypes, framework, version, or requiresPro. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema property descriptions, leaving agents without any parameter semantics.

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 RevoGrid documentation, including API reference, examples, and migration notes. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_examples or get_migration_notes, limiting differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or provide any 'when not to use' context. The optional parameters imply filtering capabilities, but the description gives no indication of how or why to use them.

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