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. It states the tool uploads a protein, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention critical details like authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing proteins), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into the flow rather than as separate bullet points, slightly affecting structure.

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 that there's an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Dictionary containing protein information'), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, as a write operation with no annotations, it lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like error cases or side effects, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for safe usage.

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%, meaning the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format constraints for 'file_path' or naming conventions for 'name'), so it meets the baseline for adequate but unenriched parameter information.

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 ('Upload a protein') and resource ('from a PDB file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_protein_from_pdb_id' or 'sanitize_protein', which prevents a perfect 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 'create_protein_from_pdb_id' (which creates from an ID rather than a file) or 'sanitize_protein' (which might process an existing protein). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid PDB file path, or exclusions.

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