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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the conditional output based on filepath (returns content or saves to file) and the Docker container context for file saving. However, it misses details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'export' specifically entails (e.g., format defaults, data scope), leaving gaps in transparency.

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 highly concise with two sentences that efficiently cover the core functionality and conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying key aspects without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with 4 parameters and mutation implications (exporting/saving data). It covers basic behavior but lacks details on return values, error cases, permissions, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant contextual gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the filepath optionality and implying format options (CSV/JSONL through parameters), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies, such as usage examples or constraints.

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 verb 'export' and resource 'data from collection', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_collection' or 'import', which would require more specific context about what 'export' entails versus those alternatives.

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 implies usage through the conditional logic about filepath, suggesting when to use it for direct return vs. file saving. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'query_collection' or 'import', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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