Paper Distill 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 formatting and sending but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or write operation (implied mutation), authentication requirements for platforms, rate limits, error handling, or what the output schema returns. For a tool that interacts with external messaging services, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second efficiently lists supported platforms. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a tool that sends data to external platforms with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases). The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description lacks completeness for safe invocation.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters (date format, papers array, platform with default). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only listing platform options without explaining their implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Format and send daily paper distill to a messaging platform.' This specifies the action (format and send), resource (daily paper distill), and target (messaging platform). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_digest' or 'prepare_summarize', which might be related to content creation rather than distribution.

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 lists supported platforms but doesn't explain prerequisites, timing (e.g., after digest generation), or how it differs from sibling tools like 'generate_digest'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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