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 searching but doesn't describe key behaviors such as search algorithm details (e.g., fuzzy matching, case sensitivity), pagination or result limits, error handling, or authentication requirements. This is inadequate for a search tool with zero 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('search cards by title or content within a project') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of cards, metadata), how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like performance or limitations. For a search tool with no structured output, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'project'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'project' scopes the search, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('cards'), and specifies the search scope ('by title or content within a project'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'codecks_list_cards', which might list cards without searching, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 sibling tools like 'codecks_list_cards' for unfiltered listing or 'codecks_get_card' for retrieving a specific card, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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