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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what happens with invalid coordinates, whether it returns formatted values or raw data, or any error conditions. For a read 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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 good schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about return values, error handling, and differentiation from similar tools. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects, but it doesn't fully compensate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain coordinate systems, document identification, or sheet selection. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('a single cell value from a standalone spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other spreadsheet tools like spreadsheet.setCell or spreadsheet.getData by specifying 'single cell' retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sheet.getCell, which appears to be a similar sibling tool.

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 sibling tools like sheet.getCell, spreadsheet.getData, and spreadsheet.getCellFormula available, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. The description lacks any context about use cases or prerequisites.

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