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 the tool changes form status to 'published' and is necessary for document creation, which are key behavioral traits. However, it misses details like permission requirements, side effects (e.g., if it affects existing documents), or error conditions, making it moderately informative but incomplete.

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 main purpose stated first, followed by usage notes and return info. Each sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the usage notes more seamlessly or bullet-pointing for clarity.

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 (a mutation operation with no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on parameters, permissions, or error handling. The presence of an output schema helps by handling return values, but the description should compensate more for the low schema coverage and missing behavioral 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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'form_id' parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a form_id is or how to obtain it, leaving the parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Makes available') and resource ('form'), and it explains the outcome ('available for creating documents'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unpublish_form' or 'create_document_from_form', which would require more specific scope or contrast.

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 implied usage guidelines with 'Activate form after creation/modification' and 'Forms must be published before they can be used for document creation', suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or how it differs from 'share_form') and prerequisites beyond form existence, leaving some ambiguity.

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