Codehooks.io 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. 'Cap a collection' implies a mutation (setting a limit), but it fails to describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is destructive (e.g., truncates excess documents), requires permissions, has side effects (e.g., affects indexing), or provides any output. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 a single phrase 'Cap a collection', which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. It lacks structure and fails to front-load essential information, such as the tool's effect or context. While brief, it doesn't earn its place by adding value; instead, it omits necessary details, making it inefficient rather than concise.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool does beyond the name, how it behaves, what it returns, or when to use it. For a tool that likely modifies collection limits, this minimal description is inadequate, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Collection name' and 'Maximum number of documents'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'cap' entails (e.g., enforces limit, truncates, or warns) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters, but the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 'Cap a collection' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without elaboration. It specifies a verb ('cap') and resource ('collection') but lacks any meaningful detail about what 'cap' means operationally, such as limiting document count or applying size constraints. While it distinguishes from obvious opposites like 'uncap_collection', it doesn't differentiate from other collection-related tools like 'drop_collection' or 'query_collection' in terms of purpose.

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., existing collection), exclusions (e.g., not for capped collections), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'uncap_collection' or 'drop_collection'. Without any context, an agent must infer usage solely from the name and parameters, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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