mcp-creator

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 write operation (publishing), requires authentication (PyPI token), and mentions environment variable alternatives. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens during publishing (e.g., overwriting existing versions). The description adds value but doesn't fully cover behavioral aspects.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and method, the second covers authentication requirements. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded 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 (publishing with authentication), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and auth needs but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., built package), error cases, or side effects. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'token' parameter's purpose (PyPI token) and alternatives (environment variable), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify 'project_dir' (e.g., what it should contain) or other implicit parameters. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps, aligning with the baseline expectation.

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 ('Publish') and target ('built package to PyPI'), specifying the method ('using uv publish'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_package' or 'check_pypi_name' by focusing on the publishing step. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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: after building a package and when ready to publish to PyPI. It mentions the prerequisite of having a PyPI token. While it doesn't explicitly list when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, the context is sufficiently clear for typical usage scenarios.

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