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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about result types and that it returns matching items with relevance scoring, which goes beyond the basic 'search' function. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with no results. The description provides some behavioral insight but leaves significant gaps.

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 with four concise sentences that each add value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter details, and return information. There's minimal waste, though the structure could be slightly more organized with clearer section separation between purpose, usage, parameters, and returns.

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 (2 parameters, search functionality), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides reasonably complete context. It covers the purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about limitations or performance characteristics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters' semantics. It clarifies that 'query' searches across name, tags, or description fields, and explains the 'result_type' parameter with its possible values and default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify exact format requirements for the query parameter.

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: searching across inventory items using text query. It specifies the resource (inventory items) and verb (searches) with some scope details (across all items). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_by_tags' or 'search_documents', which reduces clarity about when this specific search tool should be used versus those alternatives.

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 some usage context in the 'Usage' line, indicating what can be found (samples, containers, templates) and searchable fields (name, tags, description). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_tags' or 'search_documents', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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