Seafile MCP Server

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 effectively describes the search scope ('file and folder names matching the query string'), optional scoping with repo_id, and important limitations ('Search functionality depends on server configuration and may not be available on all Seafile installations'). It doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or authentication needs, but provides solid operational context.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, adds important behavioral notes, and includes clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral limitations, and return format without needing to duplicate schema details.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by briefly mentioning the optional nature of repo_id ('Optional library ID to limit search scope') and restating the query parameter. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Search') and resource ('files by name across Seafile libraries'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like seafile_list_directory or seafile_get_file_info by focusing on search functionality rather than listing or retrieving specific files.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Search for files by name') and includes a note about server configuration dependencies. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as using seafile_list_directory for browsing instead of searching.

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