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. It states the action ('Insert') implying a write/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it shifts existing rows down, what happens on invalid inputs (e.g., out-of-bounds rowIndex), or error responses. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Insert a row at a specific position.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 (a mutation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or return values. For a write operation in a sheet context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 clear descriptions for nodeId, rowIndex, and data. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of data format or rowIndex constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 ('Insert') and resource ('a row'), specifying it occurs 'at a specific position.' It distinguishes from siblings like sheet.updateRow (which modifies existing rows) and sheet.deleteRow (which removes rows). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sheet.insertColumn, which is a similar insertion operation but for columns.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., sheet must exist), exclusions (e.g., invalid rowIndex values), or comparisons to siblings like sheet.updateRow for modifying rows or sheet.setData for bulk updates. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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