mcp-creator

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 mentions the command 'uv build' but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, if it requires specific dependencies, or output behavior. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operation 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage timing. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 an output schema (which covers return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it provides minimal context for a build operation. It's adequate for basic use but lacks depth on behavior and parameters.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'project_dir' parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of any parameter info keeps it at an adequate minimum.

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 ('Build') and the resource ('MCP server package'), specifying it uses 'uv build'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'publish_package' or 'scaffold_server' by focusing on compilation rather than distribution or setup. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'check_setup' might be related), keeping it from 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 clear context on when to use this tool ('after implementing your tools'), which helps guide timing. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name explicit alternatives among siblings, but the implied workflow is sufficient for effective usage without being misleading.

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