RUAGENTIC Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one extra signal is 'published facts', implying unpublished or that only published fields are surfaced, but it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or missing/unknown listing behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the comparison scope up front and the field list trailing. The enumerated dimensions are long but each is informative; no filler 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned dimensions (stars, pricing, transport, authentication, etc.), which is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise lack. Still silent on slug sourcing, error/missing-listing behavior, and result ordering.

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% for the single 'slugs' parameter. The description conveys the count bound ('two to five'), which matches minItems/maxItems in the schema but adds nothing new, and never explains the slug format, where to obtain slugs, or whether order matters.

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 (compare) plus resource (listings) and sharpens it with scope ('two to five') and the exact dimensions compared. It is clearly distinguishable from get_listing (single listing) and search_directory, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'compare'; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternative tools. The 2-5 cardinality gives a soft hint about intended scale but is really a schema constraint restated.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what the output actually contains: client-specific config syntax and '<value>' placeholders where credentials must be supplied. It does not mention that the config is generated from published endpoint/package data without validating the server, which is a minor 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then details the per-client output formats. It earns its place but is packed enough that the client-to-format mapping requires a second read.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so (config snippet per client with credential placeholders). Both required parameters are addressed, though error/lookup behaviour for an unknown slug is unstated.

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 schema gives only a pattern for 'slug' and an enum for 'client'. The description partially compensates by tying 'slug' to a listed server and by naming the five clients (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Claude Desktop, Codex), which maps onto the enum values and clarifies what each client argument yields. It still does not explain slug lookup failures or name-to-enum mapping explicitly.

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 names a concrete deliverable (the exact configuration to add a listed MCP server to a client) and enumerates the concrete output flavours (Claude Code command, mcpServers JSON, config.toml table). This is clearly distinct from the sibling browsing tools (get_listing, search_directory, compare_listings), which return directory data rather than client setup snippets.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for when a user wants to wire a listed server into their client. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. the server must already be in the directory), and no mention of the alternative of just reading get_listing details 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, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload (kinds, categories, current counts, browse URLs) in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, return content first and the action trigger second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers both what comes back and when to use it. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of choosing valid filters is a sensible framing for a parameterless discovery call, though it adds no argument-level detail.

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 names a concrete resource (the directory) and enumerates exactly what it returns: seven kinds, twenty categories, counts, and browse URLs. That separates it from siblings like search_directory or get_listing, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Call it to choose valid filters" gives a clear trigger condition: use this before constructing a filtered query. It does not state when not to call it or name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full routing 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the negative scope ('Does not install or run anything') and by enumerating what the response contains in the absence of an output schema.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and identifier, then lists the payload compactly, ending with the negative scope. No filler and nothing is buried.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description usefully compensates by itemizing the returned fields and confirming this is a read-only lookup. It omits what happens when the slug is not found, which is the only notable gap for a one-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'slug' parameter carries only a regex pattern with no prose. The description supplies only 'by slug' as its meaning, which conveys that it is the identity key but adds little about format or lookup failure behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read one RUAGENTIC listing by slug') and enumerates the returned payload (facts, stars, connection details, Q&A). The singular 'one ... by slug' framing cleanly separates it from listing/search siblings like search_directory, top_listings, and new_listings without needing to 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?

Usage is implied by the 'one listing by slug' framing and the exclusion 'Does not install or run anything' pushes the agent away from execution-style intent. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. connect_instructions for setup steps or compare_listings for comparisons) or states the condition that would select this tool over them.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the day-window bound, which is real value, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what happens when nothing matches in the window.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and window, then appends ordering and the optional filter. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the core essentials (what, time window, sort order) are present. However, with no sibling differentiation against top_listings/search_directory and no coverage of the limit parameter or result size, an agent still has to open the schema to call it correctly.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it only partially does. It conveys the days window and the existence of a kind filter but never lists the enum values (server, client, product, skill, plugin, rules, eval) and omits the limit parameter entirely, leaving two of three parameters under-documented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Listings added to RUAGENTIC'), plus scope (last N days, 1–90) and ordering (newest first). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like top_listings or search_directory, which also surface listings.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is for recently added items, and 'optionally one kind' hints at filtering. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over top_listings or search_directory, and no exclusions 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by disclosing the return payload: 'ranked listings with public GitHub stars, launch date and listing URL', which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage before the long kind glossary, and every sentence carries information. The trailing glossary is verbose but earns its place by disambiguating an enum that would otherwise be opaque.

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 10-parameter, filter-heavy search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, return shape and the most ambiguous enum. The remaining gap is that several numeric/temporal filters (limit, offset, launched, minStars) are left to their schema constraints alone.

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 only 30% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully for the key filter by defining every kind enum value (server/client/product/skill/plugin/rules/eval), which the raw enum list does not explain. However, sort, launched, minStars and verifiedOnly still receive no explanation here or in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search RUAGENTIC listings by words, with optional filters') and clearly distinguishes itself from narrow siblings like get_listing, top_listings and new_listings by being keyword-driven with filters. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Use when someone asks for an MCP server, client, AI agent, skill, plugin, rules file or eval for a task, a product, a category or a platform.' This is clear usage context, though it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single known listing, use get_listing).

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful framing: stars are public GitHub data, 'pace' is defined as stars per day since repo creation, and the caveat that stars measure attention rather than quality. It still says nothing about return shape, ordering ties, or how the limit interacts with results.

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, front-loaded sentences: the core definition first, then the optional filter, then an interpretive caveat. Every sentence earns its place, though the sentence fragments ('Optional category.') read as notes rather than polished guidance.

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 no output schema and four parameters at 0% coverage, the description should say what a result row looks like and how it connects to get_listing or compare_listings. It covers the metric semantics well but leaves the return format and result identifiers unaddressed.

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 carry weight. It does define the two 'by' values in prose (star count vs stars-per-day pace) and alludes to kind and category, but 'limit' is never mentioned and 'kind'/'category' are only gestured at rather than explained against their enums.

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 ranking resource (most-starred or fastest-growing listings) and the metric basis for each mode, so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like compare_listings or new_listings, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 two ranking modes imply when each is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as new_listings or compare_listings. 'Optional category' hints at filtering but never states the condition for using it.

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