LibreOffice 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 states the tool 'Get[s] detailed statistics' but doesn't specify what types of statistics (e.g., word count, page count, file size), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance or permission considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with documents.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in a clear sentence. The additional 'Args' section is concise and relevant, though it could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for detailed output explanations. However, it lacks context on statistics types, usage distinctions from siblings, and behavioral traits, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It mentions 'path: Path to the document file', clarifying the parameter's purpose, but doesn't provide format details (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths, supported file types) or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this offers some compensation but remains basic.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed statistics about a document'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_document_info' or 'read_document_text', which might provide overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'get_document_info' and 'read_document_text' available, there's no indication of what makes 'get_document_statistics' unique or appropriate for specific scenarios, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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