Shepherd MCP

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 the tool fetches 'full details' but doesn't specify what those details include, whether it's a read-only operation, error conditions (e.g., invalid score ID), or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data.

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 key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter requirement.

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 'full details' entails in the return value, error handling, or how this tool fits within the Langfuse ecosystem compared to siblings. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 the 'score_id' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining what a score ID is or where to find it), so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but no extra value.

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 score/evaluation with full details'), and the '[Langfuse]' prefix distinguishes it from non-Langfuse siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'langfuse_list_scores' (which likely lists multiple scores) or 'langfuse_get_observation/session/trace' (which fetch different resource types), missing full sibling differentiation.

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 like 'langfuse_list_scores' for listing scores or other Langfuse get tools for different resources. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a score ID) or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement.

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