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. It states the tool lists collections but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 concise and front-loaded with two clear sentences: 'Show collections for space. Lists all collections available in the current space.' It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by integrating the sentences better.

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 (listing resources with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively. The description alone is insufficient for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters ('project', 'json', 'sys'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Show collections for space. Lists all collections available in the current space.' It specifies the verb ('show'/'list') and resource ('collections'), with context about scope ('for space', 'in the current space'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_collection' or 'cap_collection', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 mentions 'space' context but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings such as 'query_collection' (which might filter or search collections) or 'create_collection' (for creating new ones). Usage is implied by the purpose statement alone.

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