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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'result dict' or 'error dict', which gives some output insight, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal transparency, though not misleading.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the return behavior. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently adds necessary detail. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly structured and easy to parse.

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 one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the return types ('result dict' or 'error dict'), so the output schema can handle detailed structure. For a simple retrieval tool, this covers the essentials, though more behavioral context would enhance 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 input schema has one parameter ('job_id') with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention 'job_id', but the context of 'completed MATLAB execution job' implies its use. Since there's only one parameter and the purpose is clear, the description adequately conveys semantics without redundancy, earning a high 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the full result of a completed MATLAB execution job.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('full result'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_job_status' by focusing on results rather than status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_error_log' for failed jobs, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 for 'completed MATLAB execution job[s]' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job_status' or 'get_error_log'. It mentions 'failed jobs' but doesn't clarify if 'get_error_log' is preferred for errors. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving usage context vague.

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