Seafile MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get metadata' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or rate limits. The mention of return values is helpful but basic.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses only essential sentences. However, the Args section somewhat duplicates schema information, and the Returns section could be more concise given the output schema exists.

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 operation with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and return value structure adequately, though it lacks behavioral context like error handling or authentication requirements.

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 100%, providing clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by restating parameter names and purposes in the Args section, but doesn't provide additional context like path format examples or repository ID constraints beyond what's 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get metadata about a file') and resource ('file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'seafile_get_library_info' or 'seafile_list_directory', which also retrieve metadata but for different resources.

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. With siblings like 'seafile_get_library_info' (for library metadata) and 'seafile_list_directory' (for directory contents), there's no indication of when file metadata retrieval is preferred over other metadata tools.

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