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. 'List files from server' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it requires permissions, what format the listing returns (e.g., names only, metadata), if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at four words, front-loading the core action ('List files') with no wasted words. Every part of the phrase earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex data (a file listing). It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., file names, sizes, types), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination). This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with additional context.

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 'List files from server' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'file_delete' or 'file_upload' beyond the obvious difference in action.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication), when not to use it, or how it differs from other file-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'file_delete', 'file_upload').

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