CodeToPrompt 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 formatting 'into a prompt' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits, file size limits), error handling, or what happens if files are missing. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves and formats content.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('retrieves', 'content of a specific list of files', 'from the project', 'formatted into a prompt') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of the formatted prompt), error conditions, or operational constraints, which are critical for proper usage in a retrieval and formatting context.

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 no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of 'output_format' choices or path resolution details). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'content of a specific list of files', specifying that it's from 'the project' and formatted 'into a prompt'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ctp-analyse-project' by focusing on retrieval rather than analysis, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ctp-get-context' 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 like 'ctp-get-context'. The description mentions retrieving files 'from the project' but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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