matlab-mcp-server-python

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('runs 'help <function_name>' in MATLAB') and outcome ('returns the documentation'), but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if function_name is invalid), permissions needed, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the execution and return. It's front-loaded and has zero waste, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and parameter use, but lacks behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites, which could be improved for full completeness.

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 description adds meaning by explaining that the parameter 'function_name' is used to run 'help <function_name>' in MATLAB, which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic string type. With schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).

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 verb ('Get help text') and resource ('for a MATLAB function'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it runs 'help <function_name>' in MATLAB. This is precise and differentiates it from other documentation-related tools like get_error_log or list_functions.

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 implies usage by stating it 'runs 'help <function_name>' in MATLAB,' which suggests it's for retrieving documentation, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., check_code for syntax or get_error_log for errors). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in guidance.

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