langfuse-mcp

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 describes the tool as a 'Get' operation, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, which is helpful. However, it does not detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'API compatibility' for the dummy parameter adds some context, but overall, the behavioral information is minimal and lacks depth.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value, such as explaining the dummy parameter and detailing the return content. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and return value, and the presence of an output schema means the description does not need to detail return values extensively. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context, preventing a perfect score.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only documents one parameter ('dummy'). It explains that 'dummy' is an 'Unused parameter for API compatibility (can be left empty)', clarifying its purpose and usage. Since there is only one parameter and the schema provides minimal information, the description effectively compensates, earning a high score.

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: 'Get schema of trace, span and event objects.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('schema of trace, span and event objects'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings, such as fetch_trace or fetch_traces, which might retrieve actual data rather than schema definitions, so it falls short of a perfect 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 does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like fetch_trace or get_prompt that might serve different purposes. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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