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 discloses the behavior ('Runs 'help <toolbox_name>' in MATLAB and returns the output'), which implies it's a read-only operation that executes a command. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if running 'help' affects MATLAB state), error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the implementation. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter use, but lacks context like error cases, dependencies (MATLAB availability), or output format hints. The output schema reduces the burden, but more behavioral detail would improve completeness for a tool interacting with an external system.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic info. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'toolbox_name' is used in the command 'help <toolbox_name>', clarifying it's a MATLAB toolbox name. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., string casing, valid toolbox names) or examples. With low schema coverage, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('functions in a MATLAB toolbox'), and specifies the scope ('in a MATLAB toolbox'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' or 'list_jobs' by focusing on MATLAB functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_help' (which might provide help for specific functions) or 'list_toolboxes' (which lists toolboxes themselves), 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether MATLAB must be running), compare to 'get_help' for detailed function info, or specify use cases like exploring toolbox contents. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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