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 mentions the return value (project survey structure) and a prerequisite action (search codebase), but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Create'), potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs. It adds some context but leaves 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, followed by a crucial prerequisite. Both sentences earn their place: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides essential usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the return value and a key prerequisite. However, it doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like mutation implications or error handling. Given the complexity, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 9 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions general context (codebase search for survey answers) but doesn't explain how parameters relate to that process. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Create application and project in SD Elements' and specifies what it returns: 'Returns the project survey structure with all available questions and answers.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project' by emphasizing creation 'from code' and the survey structure return.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'IMPORTANT: Before determining survey answers, the AI client MUST search the workspace codebase for evidence of survey answers and security requirements.' This gives clear prerequisites and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'create_project' that might not require codebase analysis.

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