Perplexity Comet MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior (switching modes or checking current mode) but lacks details like whether changes persist across sessions, if there are rate limits, or what the output looks like when checking current mode. It's adequate but misses some 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by mode details and the optional parameter behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one optional parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics well. The main gap is lack of output details when checking current mode, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 documents the optional 'mode' parameter with enum values. The description adds value by explaining the semantics: calling without the parameter shows the current mode, and it provides brief explanations of each mode ('basic', 'deep research', etc.), which the schema's enum alone doesn't cover.

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 verb 'switch' and the resource 'Perplexity search mode', listing all four specific modes with brief explanations. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like comet_ask or comet_tabs by focusing on mode switching rather than querying or tab management.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('switch Perplexity search mode') and provides clear alternatives: call with a mode to switch, or without a mode to see the current mode. This covers both primary use cases and distinguishes from other tools that don't handle mode management.

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