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. It explains that the tool 'creates a linked node in the workflow and inserts it in the cell order,' which describes the mutation behavior. However, it doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or what happens if CodeBook isn't open. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but 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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence, a bulleted list of cell types with brief explanations, and a final sentence for usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there's no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (creation tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining cell types and usage context. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error behavior, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 documents all parameters well. The description adds value by listing and explaining the supported cell types in detail (e.g., 'Python/JavaScript code with execution' for code cells), which provides context beyond the enum values. However, it doesn't elaborate on 'afterCellId' or 'executionTarget' beyond what the schema says.

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 ('Add a new cell to CodeBook') and specifies the resource ('cell'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternatives for workflow canvas (code.create, text.create, sheet.create). The verb 'add' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('preferred way to add nodes when CodeBook is open') and when to use alternatives ('For workflow canvas, use code.create, text.create, or sheet.create instead'). This gives clear context for tool selection.

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