mendeley-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a list operation (implied read-only), includes default values and limits, and specifies the return format. However, it misses behavioral details like pagination, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits that would be helpful 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes scope, and the bullet points provide essential parameter semantics without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job covering parameter meanings and return format. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, for a list operation with filtering/sorting, additional context about result structure or pagination would make it more complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for all 3 parameters: 'folder_id' clarifies it filters results, 'limit' specifies default and max values, and 'sort_by' enumerates valid options. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 resource 'documents', specifying scope 'in your library or a specific folder'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mendeley_get_document' (single document) and 'mendeley_search_library' (search vs list), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'mendeley_list_folders' (documents vs folders).

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?

Usage is implied by the description's scope ('library or a specific folder') and parameter hints, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'mendeley_search_library' for filtered searches or 'mendeley_list_folders' for folder listings. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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