Seafile MCP Server

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 information, implying it's a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid repo_id inputs. The description lacks details on error handling, response format beyond 'Library object,' or any performance considerations, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant since schema coverage is high. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying input and output, though it could be more concise by omitting the schema-like formatting if not adding extra value.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' note), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic operation but lacks context on authentication, error cases, or sibling tool differentiation. With no annotations and simple schema, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the need for detailed return value explanation.

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 adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'repo_id.' It restates the parameter name and its purpose ('unique identifier of the library') but doesn't provide additional context like format examples, validation rules, or where to obtain repo_id from. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 as 'Get information about a specific library,' which is a specific verb ('Get information') and resource ('library'). It distinguishes from siblings like seafile_list_libraries (which lists multiple libraries) by focusing on a single library. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from seafile_get_file_info (which gets file-level info), leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid repo_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like seafile_list_libraries for broader queries or seafile_get_file_info for file-specific details. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context.

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