DHIS2 MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'generates' patterns and monitoring, implying a read-only or advisory function, but doesn't clarify if this involves creating files, modifying code, or providing recommendations. Critical behavioral traits like side effects, permissions needed, or output format are missing, leaving significant gaps for a tool with complex nested parameters.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Generate performance optimization patterns and monitoring for DHIS2 Android app.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, low schema coverage of 25%, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely generates code or configurations for performance optimization, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially without structured support from annotations or output schema.

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 low at 25%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't compensate by explaining what the four parameters (optimizationAreas, monitoring, batterOptimization, memoryManagement) mean or how they interact. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'batterOptimization' is a typo for 'batteryOptimization' or how these areas relate to the overall optimization process, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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: 'Generate performance optimization patterns and monitoring for DHIS2 Android app.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('performance optimization patterns and monitoring'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dhis2_optimize_performance' or other Android-specific tools, which prevents 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, ideal scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'dhis2_optimize_performance' or other Android configuration tools. This lack of context makes it challenging for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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