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. It mentions the tool checks availability but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'available' means (e.g., based on recent actions, user permissions), potential errors, or response format. It adds some context about the verification purpose but lacks depth on operational 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It explains the purpose and usage but doesn't cover potential return values or edge cases (e.g., what happens if no workflow is active). For a simple check tool, it meets minimum needs but leaves some contextual gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids unnecessary details and focuses on the tool's function.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('if undo is available'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'workflow.undo' and 'workflow.canRedo'. It explicitly defines what the tool does in a precise manner.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call before undo to verify there are changes to revert.' It directly addresses the alternative (calling 'undo' without checking) and specifies the prerequisite condition, offering clear usage context.

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