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 it 'Get[s] all documents' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or potential rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 action ('Get all documents of a specific type') and includes helpful examples in parentheses. There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get all documents' entails in terms of return values, format, or limitations. For a tool with no structured output information, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'type' documented as 'Document type to filter by'. The description adds examples of types (e.g., 'workflow', 'spreadsheet'), which provides additional context beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('documents'), specifying it filters by type. It provides examples of document types, making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'documents.list' or 'documents.getRecent', which is why it's not a 5.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'documents.list' (which might list all documents without filtering) or 'documents.getRecent', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the need for type filtering alone.

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