Codehooks.io 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 mentions what content is included (documentation, examples, etc.), but doesn't describe how the tool behaves operationally—such as whether it fetches live data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured vs. unstructured output. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, starting with the core purpose ('Get comprehensive Codehooks.io documentation and examples') followed by specifics on what's included. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and content scope well, but without annotations or output schema, it fails to provide behavioral context (e.g., how data is retrieved or formatted). This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description accurately reflects the lack of parameters by not mentioning any, and no compensation is needed for schema gaps.

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: 'Get comprehensive Codehooks.io documentation and examples.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Codehooks.io documentation and examples'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'logs' or 'query_collection', which might also provide informational outputs, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It lists what the tool includes ('complete ChatGPT prompt, setup instructions, code examples, and API reference'), but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for usage, nor does it mention when not to use it or point to other tools for related needs.

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