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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, what format the column data is returned in, if there are size limits, or if it's paginated. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't provide enough information about what the tool returns (e.g., array of values, formatted data, error conditions). The agent knows what to input but not what to expect as output.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by index or letter' for the col parameter, which is already covered in the schema's description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('an entire column from a Sheet'), specifying the retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sheet.getCell or sheet.getRows by focusing on columns. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sheet.getColumnCount, which is a related but different operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheet.getCell (for single cells), sheet.getRows (for rows), or sheet.getDataPaginated (for ranges). The description mentions the parameter options (index or letter) but doesn't help the agent choose between this tool and other data retrieval methods available in the sibling list.

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