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 'Set style properties' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified properties. The list of style properties adds some context but lacks behavioral details.

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 purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of available properties. Every sentence earns its place, and it's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. The list of style properties helps, but doesn't fully compensate for missing context about how the tool behaves or when to use it.

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 already documents both parameters ('layoutId' and 'style'). The description adds value by listing specific style properties (e.g., 'backgroundColor', 'padding', 'widthMode'), which provides semantic meaning beyond the generic 'Style properties to set' in the schema. This meets the baseline for good 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 style properties') and target ('on a layout element'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'layout.setCellStyle' or 'layout.update', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'layout.setCellStyle' or 'layout.update', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only lists available style properties without contextual usage advice.

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