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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Run an advanced report' implies an action that may involve computation, data retrieval, or processing, but it doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., generates output, triggers a job, returns results), potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification. 'Run an advanced report' is a single phrase that fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose, usage, or behavior) and doesn't front-load critical details.

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 complexity (involving reports with unspecified behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'run' entails, what the output might be, error handling, or how it integrates with other tools (e.g., 'create_advanced_report'). For a tool that likely performs significant operations, this minimal description is inadequate.

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%, with both parameters ('report_id' and 'format') documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Run an advanced report' is a tautology that restates the tool name/title without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'run' and resource 'advanced report' but doesn't explain what 'run' entails (e.g., execute, generate, process) or what distinguishes 'advanced' reports from other report types. Compared to siblings like 'create_advanced_report' and 'get_advanced_report', it fails to differentiate its purpose clearly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing report), when not to use it, or how it differs from siblings like 'execute_cube_query' or 'get_advanced_report'. With no context on usage scenarios, the agent lacks direction for tool selection.

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