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 runs 'whos' in MATLAB and returns the result, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal behavioral context.

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 adds implementation detail. There's zero waste—every sentence earns its place by clarifying how the tool works. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and how it works (running 'whos' in MATLAB). Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context, such as session requirements or error handling.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero parameters. It appropriately focuses on the tool's action without unnecessary parameter details.

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 workspace variables for the current session.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace variables'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_files or list_functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_job_status or get_server_health, which are also 'get' operations but on different resources, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 mentions running 'whos' in MATLAB, but doesn't explain when this is preferable over other tools like list_functions or read_data, or any prerequisites for the current session. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative usage context.

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