Pathfinder 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation of the plan format, which is a useful behavioral trait, but fails to cover critical aspects: whether this is a read-only or write operation (implied write from 'save'), what happens on success/failure (e.g., error messages, storage location), permissions required, or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and validation details, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second specifies validation, and the args section clarifies parameters. Minor improvement could come from integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.

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 likely covers return values), no annotations, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, side effects) and usage guidelines. For a save operation with validation, more context on outcomes and constraints would enhance 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?

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'session_id' is a Session ID and 'plan_content' is Plan content in Cursor plan format, clarifying their roles in the saving process. However, it doesn't detail format specifics (e.g., what constitutes a valid session_id or the exact structure of Cursor plan format), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Save implementation plan' with the specific action of validating that the plan follows the Cursor plan format with YAML frontmatter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'start_plan' (which likely initiates planning) and 'implement_phase' (which likely executes phases). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'save_research' (which might save research data), leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a plan must be started first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'start_plan' or 'save_research'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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