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 that it retrieves 'complete information' including 'subsample information', which adds context beyond the basic read operation implied by 'get'. However, it doesn't cover behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the sample_id is invalid), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent, 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 with clear sections (purpose, usage, parameters, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for readability. It's appropriately sized at four sentences, with each adding value: the first states the core action, the second provides usage context, the third explains parameter semantics, and the fourth outlines returns. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by merging the first two lines.

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 (single parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage hint, parameter semantics, and return content. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately addresses the key aspects for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error cases.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'sample_id can be numeric ID or global ID (e.g., "SA12345")', clarifying the input format beyond the schema's generic integer/string types. Since there's only one parameter, this adequately covers its purpose, though it doesn't detail constraints like ID length or validation rules.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('complete information about a specific sample'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_samples' (which lists multiple) and 'get_recent_samples_summary' (which provides summaries). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_container' or 'get_container_contents_only', which might also retrieve information about related resources.

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 'Usage' line implies this tool is for detailed metadata when you have a specific sample ID, suggesting it's not for listing or summarizing samples. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'list_samples' (for browsing) or 'search_inventory' (for finding samples), and doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an existing sample ID.

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