Ludus FastMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'interactively build[s] a range' and returns a 'suggested configuration and deployment plan', but lacks critical details: whether this actually deploys a range or just plans it, what permissions are needed (especially for the admin-only 'user_id'), if it's read-only or mutative, or any rate limits. For a tool with potential deployment implications and admin parameters, this is inadequate.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section. There's no wasted text. However, the formatting with bullet-like sections is slightly informal for MCP, and it could be more integrated into a single fluent paragraph, keeping it efficient but not perfectly polished.

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 complexity (interactive range building with admin parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the interactive nature (e.g., whether it involves follow-up prompts or is a one-shot), the scope of 'range' (e.g., VMs, networks), or what the 'suggested configuration and deployment plan' entails. For a tool that could lead to resource deployment, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters: 'prompt' is described as a 'Natural language description of desired range', and 'user_id' as 'Optional user ID (admin only)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which only shows types). However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of the prompt (e.g., examples, length) or clarify what 'admin only' entails (e.g., error behavior if non-admin uses it). Given the coverage gap, this is a minimal but not fully compensatory effort.

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: 'Interactively build a range using natural language prompts.' It specifies the verb ('build') and resource ('range'), and the interactive/natural language aspect distinguishes it from many sibling tools like 'build_range_from_description' or 'build_range_from_scratch'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'build_range_from_prompt' sounds similar), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. With many sibling tools for building ranges (e.g., 'build_range_from_description', 'build_range_from_prompt', 'build_range_from_scratch'), there's no indication of when this interactive method is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or when not to use it. The only implied context is the need for a natural language prompt, but that's inherent to the tool's function.

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