Circuitry MCP Server

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 states 'Set the Designer mode' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutating operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or side effects. For a tool that likely changes system state, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list that efficiently details mode options. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 of a mode-setting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or how this tool integrates with the broader designer context (e.g., sibling tools). For a state-changing operation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'mode' parameter fully documented via enum and description. The description adds minimal value by listing the enum values in bullet points, but doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or implications of each mode beyond what's in the schema. 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 ('Set') and resource ('Designer mode'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'designer.getMode' or 'designer.getActive', which are related but distinct operations. The description is specific but lacks sibling context.

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 lists mode options but doesn't explain scenarios for choosing one mode over another, prerequisites, or interactions with other tools like 'designer.getMode'. This leaves usage context unclear.

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