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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns real-time data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'simplified structure' entails (e.g., format, depth, or exclusions). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it 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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., return format, performance, or limitations). For a read-only tool with zero parameters, it's adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the full context of what 'simplified structure' means or how it behaves.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, and the baseline for this scenario is appropriately set at 4, as it's complete without requiring additional parameter details.

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 ('simplified structure of all flows in the workflow'), and provides a specific purpose ('to understand what user has drawn'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflow.getFlowcharts' or 'workflow.getNodeSummary', but the focus on 'simplified structure' offers some distinction.

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 implies usage context ('to understand what user has drawn'), suggesting it's for comprehension rather than manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'workflow.getFlowcharts' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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