Rowan 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. While 'retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial vs complete data, or handles errors (e.g., invalid UUID). The mention of returning a 'dictionary' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns sections are structured but slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter documentation could be more integrated to avoid repetition.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks context on authentication, error handling, and differentiation from alternatives, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'uuid' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter information without adding meaningful context beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or where to find UUIDs). This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('protein by UUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_proteins' (which returns multiple items) and 'create_protein_from_pdb_id' (which creates rather than retrieves). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'retrieve_workflow' or 'retrieve_calculation_molecules', which have similar retrieval patterns but different resources.

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 when to choose 'retrieve_protein' over 'list_proteins' for finding a specific protein, or how it relates to 'upload_protein' or 'create_protein_from_pdb_id' for protein creation. There's also no mention of prerequisites like needing an existing protein UUID.

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