Pythia MCP

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. It mentions listing files for download, which implies a read-only operation, but does not address potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context relative to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance on what to expect from the tool would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (recid and filterPattern). The description adds no additional semantic details about the parameters, such as examples or constraints beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('List files available for download') and the resource ('from a specific CERN Open Data record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cern_opendata_record' or 'search_cern_opendata', which might have overlapping functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by specifying the context ('from a specific CERN Open Data record'), but it does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_cern_opendata' or 'get_cern_opendata_record'. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.

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