Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get info'), but doesn't specify what 'info' includes, whether it's real-time or cached, error conditions, or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with active system state.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information 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 complexity of likely returning structured workflow data, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'info' entails (e.g., metadata, nodes, status), return format, or error handling. For a tool in a rich workflow system with many siblings, more context is needed to use it 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the zero-parameter case without unnecessary detail.

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 info') and target ('currently visible workflow'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflow.getFlowcharts' or 'workflow.getStructure', which also retrieve workflow information but with different scopes or details.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active workflow), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'workflow.getStructure' for broader context or 'designer.getActive' for similar 'active' concepts in other domains.

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