Codecks 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 it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or mention any side effects, permissions required, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., card details, status), error handling, or how it fits into workflows with siblings like 'codecks_update_card'. For a read operation in a system with multiple card-related tools, more context is needed to ensure proper integration.

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 minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and clearly documents the 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'by its ID', reinforcing the parameter's purpose, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format, examples, or where to obtain it. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific card by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'codecks_list_cards' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what information is retrieved about the card, leaving some ambiguity.

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 this over 'codecks_search_cards' for finding cards or 'codecks_list_cards' for browsing. There's also no indication of prerequisites, such as needing the card ID from another operation.

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