Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'modify nodes/edges,' it doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and basic usage, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (4 parameters with nested objects, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the purpose of 'nodeIds' ('from createFlowchart response') but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. 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 action ('Update an existing flowchart') and the resource ('flowchart'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'nodes.createFlowchart' by specifying it's for updates rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'nodes.update' or 'screen.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 provides some usage context by mentioning 'Pass nodeIds from createFlowchart response to modify nodes/edges,' which implies this tool should be used after creation. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus other update tools (like 'nodes.update' or 'layout.update') or provide explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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