SD Elements MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something new (implying a write operation) but doesn't mention permissions required, whether this persists data, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The examples show parameter formats but don't describe system behavior beyond creation.

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 concise with two sentences and two examples. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides parameter format guidance. However, the examples could be better integrated rather than presented as separate sentences, and there's some redundancy in describing JSON string/object formats.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'advanced report' is in this system, what happens after creation, how to access the created report, or error conditions. The parameter examples are helpful but don't compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by showing example formats for 'query' and 'chart_meta' parameters, but doesn't explain the meaning of schema fields, dimension/measure relationships, or how these parameters interact. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 creates a new advanced report, specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'advanced report'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_advanced_report' (read) and 'update_advanced_report' (modify), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'execute_cube_query' or 'run_advanced_report' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus 'execute_cube_query' or 'run_advanced_report', or what distinguishes creating a report from running one. The description focuses solely on parameter syntax without contextual usage information.

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