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 states what the tool does ('connect two nodes') but doesn't describe what happens after connection, whether this is a mutating operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what error conditions might occur. For a tool that likely modifies graph structure, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 that creates connections between nodes (likely modifying graph structure), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, an agent lacks crucial information about what the tool returns, what side effects occur, or how to handle errors. The description does the bare minimum for a creation/mutation tool.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema documentation, though the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or edge cases.

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 ('connect') and resources ('two nodes with an edge'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edges.delete' or 'edges.deleteBetween', but the verb 'connect' is specific enough to distinguish it from deletion 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. There are no mentions of prerequisites, constraints, or comparisons to similar tools like 'circuitry.connect' or 'nodes.addConnected' from the sibling list. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and parameters.

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