Examplary 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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Delete') and specifies a failure condition ('fails if there are any exams associated'), which are crucial behavioral traits. It could be improved by mentioning authentication needs or rate limits, but it covers key destructive aspects well.

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 that are front-loaded with the main action and followed by a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information, 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 complexity (destructive operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, key behavioral constraint, and usage context. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or return values, which could enhance completeness for a destructive tool.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies that the 'id' parameter identifies the taxonomy to delete, but does not provide additional details like format or constraints. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's obvious from the schema, resulting in a score of 3.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a taxonomy from the current workspace'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'deleteExamsid' or 'deleteFoldersid' by specifying the taxonomy resource type.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to delete a taxonomy) and includes a critical constraint ('fails if there are any exams associated with the taxonomy'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related operations.

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