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. While 'Create a new node' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the source node doesn't exist, whether connections are bidirectional, what the return value contains, or error conditions. For a creation/connection tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's purpose and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 and connects nodes (a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, side effects, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the complexity of node/edge operations in this system and the rich sibling toolset, more contextual information would be valuable for an agent.

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 mentions creating a node and connecting it to an existing node, which aligns with 'sourceNodeId' and implies 'type'/'name'/'config' parameters for the new node. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 ('Create a new node and connect it') and the resource ('to an existing node'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodes.add' or 'nodes.insertBetween', which likely have overlapping functionality in node creation/connection contexts.

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 'nodes.add' (which might create nodes without connections) or 'edges.connect' (which might connect existing nodes). There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately among the many node/edge-related tools.

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