Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the case-insensitive search behavior, the Designer mode constraint (searching only the currently selected screen), and the fact that it retrieves components by display name rather than ID. This provides good operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 in three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core purpose, second adds search behavior and use case, third provides critical Designer mode constraint. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral constraints, and parameter examples. The main gap is the lack of information about return format or what happens when no component is found, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor omission.

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 single parameter 'name' already documented as 'Component display name (e.g., "Login Form")'. The description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema, mentioning examples like 'Login Form' or 'Navigation Menu' but not providing new parameter insights. This meets the baseline for 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('HTML component'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'html.get' (which likely requires ID) by specifying 'by its display name' and 'without needing to know the ID'. This makes the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to find components like "Login Form" or "Navigation Menu" without needing to know the ID') and includes an important behavioral constraint ('In Designer mode, searches currently selected screen'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'html.get' (which may require ID).

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