AGR MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool runs queries and targets AllianceMine, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like. For a query execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and target audience. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality followed by user guidance.

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 of executing raw XML queries against a database system, the description is insufficiently complete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral disclosure, users lack critical information about what this tool actually returns, error conditions, performance characteristics, or security implications. The description should provide more context about the operation's nature and results.

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 fully documents the single 'xml' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'PathQuery XML' in the context of the tool's purpose, but doesn't provide additional syntax examples, format requirements, or constraints beyond what's implied in the schema's description. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Run a raw PathQuery XML query') and target resource ('against AllianceMine'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mine_natural_query' or 'mine_query_builder' that likely offer different query interfaces. It explicitly identifies the intended user group ('power users who know InterMine PathQuery syntax'), which further clarifies its specialized purpose.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating it's 'For power users who know InterMine PathQuery syntax,' which implicitly suggests when NOT to use it (for users unfamiliar with PathQuery syntax). It also distinguishes this tool from potential alternatives by specifying it handles 'raw PathQuery XML' queries, unlike sibling tools like 'mine_natural_query' or 'mine_search' that likely offer different query methods.

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