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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering and follow options', which hints at interactive or real-time features, but doesn't detail critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. 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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: 'Show system logs for a space with filtering and follow options.' It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it into separate clauses for clarity, but it's already very efficient.

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 complexity of a logging tool with filtering and streaming capabilities, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage context. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 minimal value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'filtering and follow options', which loosely corresponds to the 'context' and 'follow' parameters, but doesn't explain their semantics or usage. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters well, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show system logs for a space' with 'filtering and follow options'. It specifies the verb ('Show') and resource ('system logs for a space'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'docs' or 'query_collection', which might also involve data retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 mentions 'filtering and follow options', but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't indicate if this is for debugging, monitoring, or other contexts, or how it differs from other data-access tools in the sibling list.

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