Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what format the headers are returned in, or if there are any limitations (e.g., maximum sheet size). It lacks details about the return structure or potential errors.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant or verbose elements.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more context about the return format (e.g., array of strings, JSON structure) or usage constraints. The lack of sibling differentiation is a notable gap given the many sheet-related tools.

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 'nodeId' clearly documented as 'Sheet node ID or name'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. However, it doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid 'nodeId' or provide examples.

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 ('column headers of a Sheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheet.getCell' or 'sheet.getColumn', which also retrieve sheet data but target different elements.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve sheet data (e.g., 'sheet.getCell', 'sheet.getColumn', 'sheet.getDataPaginated'), there's no indication of when headers specifically are needed or what distinguishes this tool from other data retrieval methods.

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