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 the input methods but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify what 'import' actually does (e.g., inserts data into a collection, overwrites existing data, requires permissions), potential side effects, error handling, or format requirements beyond JSON/CSV. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying input options and formats, with zero redundant information. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 this is a mutation tool (import implies data insertion/writing) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during import (e.g., data validation, collection requirements, error behavior), return values, or system impacts. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the two input options ('filepath' or 'content') and data formats (JSON/CSV), but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples. 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 verb 'import' and resource 'data from file or content', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'export' (opposite operation) and 'file_upload' (different upload mechanism). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all data-related siblings like 'kv_set' or 'create_collection'.

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 implied usage guidance by specifying the two input methods ('filepath' for Docker files, 'content' for JSON/CSV strings). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file_upload' or 'kv_set', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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