Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), returns structured data about selections, and specifies that it returns an empty array if nothing is selected. However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance, or authentication needs, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage context and return behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (simple read operation with no parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the return behavior. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of the array), but it's adequate for the context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on purpose and behavior. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear context.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('currently selected nodes and what is selected within them'), with specific examples of node types (cells in sheets, text in code/text/agent nodes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'workflow.getActive' or 'workflow.getNodeSummary' by focusing on selection context rather than active workflow or node summaries.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to understand what the user is referring to when they say "this", "what does this do?", "explain this", etc.' This provides clear context for usage, and the mention of returning an empty array if nothing is selected helps set expectations, though it doesn't name specific alternatives among siblings.

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