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 behaviors: it creates a flowchart (implying a write operation), returns nodeIds for updates, and details node and edge properties with defaults and conventions (e.g., shape defaults, color meanings). It lacks information on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, but covers core functionality well.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by detailed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details into bullet points or reducing redundancy in the parameter explanations.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose, return value implications, and detailed parameter semantics for nodes and edges. However, it does not address all parameters (e.g., startPosition, spacing, autoLayout) or potential error cases, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the semantics of nodes and edges beyond the schema: it defines shape options with defaults, color conventions (e.g., red for problems), and edge handle usage for decisions. This clarifies parameter usage effectively, though it does not cover startPosition, spacing, or autoLayout parameters.

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 specific action ('Create a flowchart with nodes and edges on the canvas') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the return value ('Returns nodeIds mapping for subsequent modifications via nodes.updateFlowchart'), which differentiates it from other nodes.* tools like nodes.add or nodes.update.

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 implies usage by mentioning the return value for 'subsequent modifications via nodes.updateFlowchart', suggesting a workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nodes.add or chart.create, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for its use.

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