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. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and perfectly concise for its purpose.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage guidelines, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent under-informed about risks and proper application.

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%, with the single parameter 'collection' documented as 'Name of collection to drop'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the schema.

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 'Delete a collection' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (collection), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_schema' or 'file_delete', which prevents a perfect score, but the verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 'remove_schema' or 'uncap_collection'. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for deletion, leaving the agent with insufficient information to make informed usage decisions.

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