matlab-mcp-server-python

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 mentions the deletion action and the session temp directory constraint, but fails to address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation without annotation support.

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 highly concise with two sentences that directly convey key information: the action and a critical constraint. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (a destructive operation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits details on permissions, reversibility, and error cases. However, the presence of an output schema might help mitigate some gaps in return values, but overall, it falls short of being fully informative.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond implying 'filename' is required. It doesn't explain what 'filename' should include (e.g., path, extension) or provide examples, so it only marginally compensates for the schema gap, resulting in a baseline score.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from the session's temporary directory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'upload_data' beyond the deletion aspect, 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 some context by stating 'Only files in the session temp directory can be deleted,' which implies a usage constraint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'list_files' for checking files first) or any prerequisites, leaving room for improvement.

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