Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'EServer fetches files and sets up sync,' which hints at network/file operations and ongoing synchronization, but doesn't specify permissions needed, error handling, rate limits, or what 'sync' entails. For a creation tool with mutation implications, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral details, but there's no wasted text, and it conveys essential information 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and hints at server behavior, but lacks details on prerequisites, error cases, or output format. Given the mutation nature (creation) and sibling tools, more context would improve completeness.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('filePaths' as array of absolute paths, 'layout' with enum values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying file fetching occurs, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., how layout affects node arrangement). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create multiple code nodes') and resource ('from file paths'), with additional context about EServer fetching files and setting up sync. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'code.create' (single node creation) or 'code.createBatchGrouped' (grouped batch creation), which would be needed for 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code.create' (single node) or 'code.createBatchGrouped' (grouped batch). The description mentions EServer behavior but doesn't help the agent choose between similar batch creation 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.