social-research-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'Results are saved to the local timeline database,' which adds behavioral context about data persistence. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'scrape' entails (e.g., data extraction scope), making it insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second adds usage and behavioral details. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating guidelines from behavior).

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 moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral aspects (data saving), but for a scraping tool with mutation implications, it should include more on permissions, limitations, or output format to be fully adequate.

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 fully documents the parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'Search by keyword or channel URL,' which aligns with the 'search' and 'channel_urls' parameters but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'Scrape videos from YouTube' specifies the action (scrape) and resource (YouTube videos). It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., timeline_query) but not explicitly from other scraping tools like scrape_facebook or scrape_twitter, which reduces it from a 5.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions 'Search by keyword or channel URL' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like scrape_tiktok or timeline_search. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context vague.

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