LearnMCP 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 status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, response format, or whether it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured if it included brief usage hints.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the status includes (e.g., progress percentages, errors), how results are returned, or any limitations, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively in a processing 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'project_id' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing semantics.

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 ('Get') and the target ('current processing status for learning sources in a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_learning_summary' or 'list_learning_sources', which might also provide status-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, timing (e.g., after processing starts), or how it differs from siblings like 'get_learning_summary', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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