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 full burden. It states the action is deletion but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's irreversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and predictability.

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 waste—'Delete a file from server' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (destructive operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or safety warnings, which are essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly and safely in a server environment.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (filename, match, dryrun) thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the relationship between filename and match or explaining dryrun implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a file from server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'kv_del' or 'drop_collection', which also perform deletion operations on different resources, so it misses the opportunity to clarify its specific domain.

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. With sibling tools like 'kv_del' for key-value deletion and 'drop_collection' for collection deletion, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for file deletion, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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