Pathfinder 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 states the tool starts a research session but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., does it create resources, require authentication, have side effects, or return a session object?). This is inadequate for a tool that likely initiates a stateful process.

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 with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief but clear, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.

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 likely initiates a research workflow (implied by sibling tools), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral traits and integration with other tools, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role.

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 parameter semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'task_description' describes the research task and 'session_id' is optional and auto-generated if not provided. However, with 0% schema description coverage, this only partially compensates for the two parameters, leaving details like format constraints unexplained.

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 ('Start a new research session') and the resource ('research session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_plan' or 'save_research' which appear related to the same workflow, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_plan' or 'save_research'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical workflow context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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