my-design 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. It mentions the tool returns '所有可用组件及其分类、状态等元信息' (all available components with their classification, status, and other metadata), which gives some output context. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and return value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the scope of returned information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (list operation with optional filtering), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers what the tool does and what information it returns, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, performance characteristics, or error conditions that would be important for an agent to use it 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (category and status) well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain the filtering logic, default behavior when parameters aren't provided, or how multiple filters interact. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose: '获取 my-design 组件库的组件列表' (get the component list of the my-design component library). It specifies the resource (component library) and action (get list), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like component_search or component_details, which would require explicit differentiation.

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 sibling tools like component_search (which might offer more flexible filtering) or component_details (which provides detailed information about specific components), leaving the agent to guess about appropriate usage contexts.

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