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. It mentions pagination and suitability for large sheets, which is useful context. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON array, error handling), performance characteristics, or any rate limits. For a data retrieval tool with no annotations, 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 and front-loaded, consisting of only two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language. It efficiently communicates key information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (data retrieval with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and when to use it but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and error handling. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output documentation, it should provide more context to fully guide an agent, such as what the returned data looks like or how to handle empty pages.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'nodeId', 'page', and 'pageSize'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or edge cases. However, it implicitly reinforces the pagination aspect, which aligns with the parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get sheet data with pagination.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sheet data'), and distinguishes itself from non-paginated alternatives like 'sheet.getData' or 'spreadsheet.getData' by explicitly mentioning pagination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, such as 'sheet.getRows' or 'sheet.getCell', which might also retrieve data but with different scopes or methods.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Best for large sheets (100K+ rows).' This gives a specific threshold and implies that for smaller sheets, other tools might be more appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, such as for real-time updates or single-cell retrieval, which could be handled by siblings like 'sheet.getCell' or 'sheet.getRows'.

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