SD Elements MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool ensures notes are saved when status doesn't change (unlike update_countermeasure's notes parameter), and it accepts both integer and string formats for countermeasure ID. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage triggers, parameter format details, and important behavioral distinction. Every sentence adds value, though the second paragraph could be slightly more concise. Front-loads key information effectively.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, parameter formats, and critical behavioral differences from alternatives. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error responses.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: it explains the countermeasure_id accepts both integer (e.g., 21) and string (e.g., 'T21' or '31244-T21') formats, and clarifies the note parameter's purpose in relation to status changes. This compensates well for the structured schema.

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 specific action ('add a note to a countermeasure') and resource ('countermeasure'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_countermeasure'. It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact scope of operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when adding notes to countermeasures that already have the target status') and when not to ('Use update_countermeasure if user wants to change status'). Provides clear alternatives and includes user intent examples ('add note', 'document', etc.).

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