dochost-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: permanent deletion, immediate link disabling, slug freeing, and idempotency for already-deleted pages. It could mention authentication or rate limits, but the essentials are covered.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose and then adding behavioral details.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the action, side effects, and safety, matching the complexity level.

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 mentions 'by slug' but provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient to help an agent understand the parameter format or source.

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 (delete) and the resource (page by slug), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_page, list_my_pages, and update_page.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (for permanent deletion) by stating 'permanently delete' and adding that deleting an already-deleted page is a safe no-op, but does not explicitly exclude other 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?

The description implies a read-only operation by listing retrieved data. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it adequately conveys non-destructive behavior. No hidden side effects or contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage guidance. No extraneous content; every phrase 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies the returned data (plan, quota, flags) and provides actionable guidance (call before publishing). This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 applies as schema fully covers the zero-parameter interface.

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 returns account information including plan, page-quota usage, and entitlement flags. The verb 'get' and specific resources make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on pages.

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 explicitly advises calling the tool before publishing to know limits. While it provides clear usage context and timing, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but given no overlapping siblings, this is sufficient.

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?

Describes what is returned and explicitly states what is never returned (page body, password). This goes beyond the bare minimum and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior despite missing 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no waste. The first sentence lists return fields, the second clarifies what is excluded. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key output fields and constraints. It lacks mention of error handling (e.g., page not found) but is otherwise complete.

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 explains that the slug parameter identifies the page, which adds minimal context beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, some compensation is needed, but no additional details about slug format or validation 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a page by slug and enumerates specific fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_page and update_page by focusing on read-only metadata retrieval without body or password.

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 on when to use this tool compared to siblings. For example, it doesn't explain when to use list_my_pages instead for multiple pages or how this differs from getting the page body via another potential tool.

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 discloses that it lists published pages, newest first, paginated, and returns compact records without page bodies. This provides good behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Ideal length for a simple listing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description covers the essential aspects. Could mention more about default behavior, but sufficient.

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 0% and the description does not explain the limit/offset parameters beyond mentioning pagination. The agent must infer from schema constraints, missing how they affect results.

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 lists pages published to dochost, with newest first. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_page, get_page, etc., which are for other 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?

The description implies pagination and compact records, giving context on when to use (list own pages). No explicit when-not or alternatives, but adequate for a simple list tool.

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 fully disclose behavior. It mentions plan restrictions and shareable URL but omits details on idempotency, error handling, whether a slug conflict causes failure or overwrite, or the exact response structure. The coverage is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and output. However, the second sentence could be split for better readability.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (publishing a page), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the response format beyond 'shareable URL', nor does it discuss error states (e.g., invalid format, plan limits). Sibling tools (e.g., update_page) are not compared to help the agent decide.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain all parameters. It adds context for 'body', 'format', 'password', 'customSlug', and 'noBranding' indirectly via 'branding follows your account entitlements', but fails to explain 'public' (despite being a boolean). The description does not compensate for the low coverage adequately.

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 ('publish'), resource ('Markdown or HTML as a hosted dochost page'), and output ('get a shareable URL'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_page, update_page, etc., which handle existing pages rather than creation.

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 usage for publishing content but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_page (for editing existing pages). It mentions plan entitlements but lacks explicit when-not or exclusion criteria.

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 full burden. It clearly states that URL, view/like counts, and expiry remain unchanged, and that resending identical content is a no-op. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior beyond mutation.

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 sentences: first states action and what changes/stays, second adds idempotency. No wasted words, highly 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (what changes, what doesn't, idempotency). It lacks mention of prerequisites or return value but is otherwise sufficient.

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 add meaning. It mentions that body, format, and title change, connecting to schema parameters, but does not explicitly describe the slug parameter or any parameter format. Partial compensation for missing schema docs.

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 explicitly states the tool replaces page content in place, listing what stays (URL, counts, expiry) and what changes (body, format, title), making the purpose very specific and distinct from siblings like delete_page or publish.

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 a behavioral note about no-op on identical content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_page, publish). No when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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