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. It discloses the fuzzy search behavior and the multiple searchable attributes (name, alias, keywords, category), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, result limits, sorting, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool actually behaves.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by three specific use cases. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value: the first defines the tool's function, the second lists searchable attributes, and the third provides concrete usage scenarios. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 (search function with fuzzy matching), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and usage guidelines well, but lacks information about behavioral aspects (pagination, limits, response format) that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively. The description does its job for basic understanding but leaves gaps in operational details.

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%, with the single 'query' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds some context by listing the types of content that can be searched (component name, alias, keywords, category) and providing example queries, but this mostly reinforces what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('搜索' - search) and resource ('my-design 组件库的组件' - my-design component library components). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it's for fuzzy search across multiple attributes (name, alias, keywords, category), unlike component_list which likely lists all components or component_details which shows details for a specific component.

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 explicitly provides three use cases: 1) exploring when uncertain about component names, 2) finding suitable components based on requirements, and 3) finding related components. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like component_list (likely for browsing all components) or component_details (for detailed information on a known component).

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