server_start

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as whether the operation is destructive, what happens to existing servers, or error conditions. The description does not go beyond stating basic functionality.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. The second paragraph adds useful context. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is well-structured without unnecessary fluff.

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?

With five parameters undocumented and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. The agent lacks information on default behavior, output, or error handling, making it insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the five parameters (port, cores, multi, timeout_seconds, version). The agent gets no guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 it starts a local COMSOL Multiphysics Server and connects the MCP client. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_connect by labeling itself as an 'advanced entrypoint' and recommending an alternative workflow.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use vs alternatives: it says this is advanced, and the recommended workflow is to manually start the server and use server_connect instead. This helps an agent decide which tool to invoke.

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