RSpace MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a 'Paginated list of form metadata,' which is crucial for understanding output structure and handling large datasets. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'Lists' but not explicit). The description adds value but misses some operational context.

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, followed by usage, filtering, and returns in bullet-like sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct, non-redundant information without fluff. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 (listing with filtering/pagination), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, filtering, and pagination, addressing key aspects. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or sibling tool differentiation, leaving minor gaps in context.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'query' ('Filtering: Use query parameter to search form names/descriptions'), explaining its purpose beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover 'order_by,' 'page_number,' or 'page_size,' leaving three parameters undocumented. This partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 'Lists available custom forms for structured document creation,' specifying the verb (lists), resource (custom forms), and context (structured document creation). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_form' (singular) and 'create_form' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving or creating. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing tools like 'list_containers' or 'list_samples,' 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 clear usage context with 'Browse available templates before creating structured documents,' indicating when to use this tool (for browsing templates). It implies an alternative ('create_document_from_form') by referencing document creation, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name all relevant alternatives like 'get_form' for single-form retrieval. This is helpful but not exhaustive.

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