Judge0 CE MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get active languages' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results return, if there are rate limits, or how 'active' is defined. The description is too minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Get active languages' is maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration for such a simple tool.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'active languages' means in this context, how results are structured, or how this differs from other language tools. The agent lacks necessary context to use this tool effectively.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and the baseline for zero parameters is appropriately set at 4.

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 'Get active languages' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('active languages'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_a_language' or explain what distinguishes 'active languages' from other language-related operations.

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 like 'get_a_language' or 'get_configuration'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions that would help an agent choose between available language-related tools.

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