Codecks MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the constraint about the default space, it doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, error conditions, or what happens to contained cards/decks. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a critical constraint. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delete' means operationally (permanent removal vs soft delete), what happens to child resources, authentication requirements, or return values. The constraint about space ID 1 is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but no additional value.

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 specific action ('Delete a space') and resource ('from a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like codecks_rename_space or codecks_create_space. It provides precise scope by mentioning the constraint about the default space (ID 1).

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('Cannot delete the default space (ID 1)'), providing clear exclusion criteria. However, it doesn't mention when to use alternatives like codecks_archive_card for similar purposes or prerequisites for deletion.

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