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 default project behavior but does not cover other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and default behavior without any wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, output format) that would be needed for full contextual understanding, especially without annotations to fill those gaps.

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%, so the input schema already documents the single parameter 'project' with its description. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the default behavior but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all decks in a project', specifying the scope with 'with card counts and space info'. It distinguishes from siblings like codecks_list_cards (lists cards) and codecks_list_projects (lists projects) by focusing on decks.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'List all decks in a project' and specifies default behavior ('Uses default project if not specified'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using codecks_list_cards for card-level details instead.

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