RevoGrid DataGrid MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only search but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, rate limits, or any constraints. The word 'only' hints at scoping but is insufficient for transparency.

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 (7 words), which is efficient but severely under-specifies the tool. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a low score.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to define what constitutes an 'example', how results are returned, or how parameters affect the search. This leaves agents without critical information.

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 provides no explanation of the 5 parameters (e.g., 'query', 'limit', 'surface', 'version', 'framework'). Agents receive no clues about how to use these parameters effectively.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('runnable or live RevoGrid examples'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_revogrid_docs', which might also return examples. The word 'only' helps but is insufficient for explicit distinction.

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., 'search_revogrid_docs' or 'get_migration_notes'). The description lacks context about the intended use case or exclusions.

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 states the tool retrieves upgrade notes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of version migration queries, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It should explain return formats, error handling, or usage nuances to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 implies parameters for version ranges ('between RevoGrid versions'), which aligns with the required 'fromVersion' and 'toVersion' in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters total, it doesn't explain the optional 'framework' parameter or provide details beyond basic inference, resulting in a 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'upgrade notes between RevoGrid versions', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_revogrid_docs', which might also retrieve documentation-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_revogrid_docs' or 'resolve_feature_matrix'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what information will be resolved (existence, Pro status, learning location) but doesn't describe how the tool behaves: no mention of response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or return values. While concise, it fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to effectively use this tool beyond basic purpose understanding.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'featureName' (the required parameter) but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid feature name. It doesn't mention the optional 'version' and 'framework' parameters at all, leaving their purpose and usage completely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('resolve whether...exists', 'whether it is Pro', 'where to learn it') and identifies the resource ('RevoGrid feature'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on feature resolution rather than examples, migration notes, or documentation search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (find_examples, get_migration_notes, search_revogrid_docs). There's no mention of prerequisites, alternative scenarios, or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search' without revealing how the search works, what order results return, or any side effects. The schema hints at capabilities (e.g., surface, framework) but the description omits them.

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. However, given the complexity of the tool, it is too terse and sacrifices necessary detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools with overlapping functionality. The description does not provide enough context to use it effectively, such as parameter usage, expected output, or when to choose it over alternatives.

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 fails to explain any of the 7 parameters beyond a vague reference to documentation types. Parameter names like 'surface' and 'framework' are not clarified, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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?

Description clearly states it searches docs, API reference, examples, and migration notes for RevoGrid, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_examples or get_migration_notes, which may cause overlap confusion.

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. It does not specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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