RSpace 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. It adds some behavioral context: 'Optimized for dashboard and summary displays' hints at performance characteristics, and 'Returns: Lightweight sample list with essential information only' describes the output format. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), error conditions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence followed by bullet-like sections (Usage, Performance, Filtering, Returns). Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value—no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with two parameters.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, performance hints, parameter semantics, and return format. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from explicitly stating read-only behavior or other traits, but the output schema reduces the need for return value details, keeping it adequate.

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 adds meaningful context: 'Filtering: Configurable time window and result count' explains the purpose of the parameters beyond their names ('days_back' and 'page_size'). This clarifies that 'days_back' controls the time window and 'page_size' limits results, which is valuable given the lack of schema descriptions. However, it doesn't detail default values or constraints, so it's not a full 5.

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: 'Retrieves recent samples with minimal data for dashboard views.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('recent samples'), and scope ('minimal data for dashboard views'), distinguishing it from more detailed retrieval tools like 'get_sample' or 'list_samples' in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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: 'Quick overview of recent activity without full sample details' and 'Optimized for dashboard and summary displays.' This implicitly guides when to use this tool (for summaries) versus alternatives like 'get_sample' (for full details). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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