Delphi Build 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 explains what the tool does (generates config files, extracts settings, supports platform-specific files) but omits details like error handling for failed builds, performance characteristics, or authentication needs. It adequately describes the core behavior but lacks depth on operational traits.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by supporting details. It uses three sentences efficiently, with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior adequately. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for a tool with 4 parameters and mutation implications (file generation).

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format requirements for 'build_log_path' or how 'use_env_vars' affects output). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific verbs ('generate', 'parse', 'extract') and resources ('delphi_config.toml file', 'IDE build log'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on automatic configuration generation from a single build log, unlike 'extend_config_from_build_log' or 'generate_config_from_multiple_build_logs'.

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 ('by parsing an IDE build log', 'from a successful compilation'), implying it's for automating configuration after a build. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'compile_delphi_project' or 'extend_config_from_build_log'.

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