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. It states the tool lists all spaces, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., archived spaces). This is a significant gap for a list operation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a helpful definition of spaces. It's efficient with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly noting it's a read-only operation).

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 complexity (list operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list of space objects), error cases, or how results are ordered, which are critical for a list tool without structured output documentation.

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 the single optional parameter 'project' with its description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema 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 action ('List all spaces') and resource ('in a project'), and defines what spaces are ('containers for organizing decks'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'codecks_list_projects' or 'codecks_list_decks', but the resource specificity provides implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'codecks_list_projects' or 'codecks_list_decks'. The description implies usage for listing spaces within a project but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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