Codecks 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'derivedStatus for each card', adding some context beyond basic listing. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('List all cards'), then adds filtering options and return details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format (beyond 'derivedStatus'), error cases, or behavioral traits. For a list tool with filtering, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 value by listing the optional filters (deck, project, status) and mentioning that 'project' overrides 'CODECKS_DEFAULT_PROJECT'. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents these parameters well. The description provides marginal extra context but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'List all cards from Codecks' with optional filtering. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('cards from Codecks'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'codecks_search_cards' or 'codecks_get_card', 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 implies usage by mentioning optional filters (deck, project, status), suggesting when to use it for filtered listings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'codecks_search_cards' or 'codecks_get_card', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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