Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing configuration not mentioned, or potential side effects. For a tool that modifies chart settings without any annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. While brevity can lead to underspecification, here it's efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 complexity (mutating chart settings with a nested object parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or how the configuration object should be structured. For a tool that likely involves detailed settings, more context is needed to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('nodeId' and 'config') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain what a 'Chart node ID' refers to or what 'Chart configuration' entails beyond the schema's basic labels. This meets the baseline score since 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 'Update chart configuration' clearly states the action (update) and target (chart configuration), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of configuration are updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'chart.create' or 'nodes.updateFlowchart' that might also affect charts. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from related operations.

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. With sibling tools like 'chart.create' (likely for initial setup) and 'nodes.updateFlowchart' (potentially for structural changes), there's no indication whether this is for visual settings, data bindings, or other aspects. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient.

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