Codehooks.io MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on errors. It mentions adding fields but doesn't clarify if this modifies existing indexes or creates new ones.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters.

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 is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, and return values, failing to compensate for the missing structured data, which is critical for safe 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying 'index' refers to 'field(s)' but doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Add') and target ('field(s) to a query index'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'drop_index' or specify what type of index is being modified, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'drop_index' or 'add_schema', nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the collection must exist. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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