Delphi Build MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it 'Intelligently merges new paths while preserving existing settings and avoiding duplicates' and mentions default behavior ('default: overwrites existing' from schema). It explains the transformation logic (merging, duplicate avoidance) and output behavior, though it doesn't cover error handling or permission requirements.

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 perfectly sized with three sentences that each earn their place: first states purpose, second provides usage context, third explains behavioral logic. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how it behaves. It explains the merging logic and use case, though it could benefit from mentioning what happens when paths conflict or if there are validation requirements for the input files.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context about parameter purposes ('with settings from a new IDE build log' clarifies build_log_path, 'extend an existing delphi_config.toml' clarifies existing_config_path), but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Extend an existing delphi_config.toml with settings from a new IDE build log'), identifies the resource (delphi_config.toml file), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it's for extending rather than generating configurations. It explicitly contrasts with 'regenerating the entire configuration' which differentiates it from generate_config_from_build_log.

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 about when to use this tool ('Useful for adding support for new platforms or libraries without regenerating the entire configuration'), which implicitly suggests alternatives (the generate_config_* siblings). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct comparisons to specific sibling tools.

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