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 but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions efficiency but does not disclose whether this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the impact on existing data. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains the formula pattern syntax in a single, clear sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it highly concise 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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the formula pattern aspect but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output expectations. While the schema provides parameter documentation, the description does not compensate for the absence of annotations and output schema, leaving gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the formula pattern syntax with {row}/{col} placeholders and Excel-style indexing, which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like nodeId or fill directions, relying on the schema.

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 ('Fill a range with a formula pattern') and resource ('sheet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sheet.setCell or sheet.setCells by emphasizing pattern-based filling for computed columns/rows. The mention of efficiency for computed columns/rows further clarifies its specialized use case.

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 for computed columns/rows with formula patterns, providing some context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheet.setCellFormula or sheet.setCells. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in guidance.

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