RAGFlow MCP Server

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 states the tool retrieves content but doesn't describe how it works (e.g., similarity search, ranking), what the output format is (since no output schema exists), or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 of a retrieval operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'relevant content' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that likely involves search logic and result formatting, more context is needed to understand its full functionality and limitations.

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 both parameters ('dataset_ids' and 'question') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the question is used for retrieval or the format of dataset IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('检索相关内容' - retrieve relevant content) and the resource ('从RAGFlow中指定的数据集' - from specified datasets in RAGFlow). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'chat' and 'create_chat' by focusing on retrieval rather than conversation, though it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'list_datasets'. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 when to prefer 'retrieve' over 'chat' or 'create_chat' for information needs, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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