Rowan 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. It mentions that it 'retrieves a list' (implying read-only) and notes potential HTTP errors, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the calculation UUID is invalid. It adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there's no redundant information, making it 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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic operation and error handling, though it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'uuid' parameter fully. The description repeats the parameter info in the Args section but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'Retrieve a list of molecules from a calculation.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('molecules from a calculation'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'molecule_lookup' or 'batch_molecule_lookup,' which might retrieve molecules from other sources.

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 sibling tools or contexts where this retrieval is preferred over other molecule-related tools, leaving the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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