HubLens MCP Server

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 that the tool retrieves details (implying read-only behavior) and includes multilingual content, but it does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and included content without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and what content to expect, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or response structure. The description is complete enough for basic use but could be more 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 100% description coverage, with the 'slug' parameter fully documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying the content returned (e.g., summaries, metadata in English and Chinese), but it does not provide additional details about parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get full details') and resource ('specific OSS project article'), specifying the scope ('by its slug') and content included ('summaries, use cases, highlights, and metadata in English and Chinese'). It distinguishes from sibling tools hublens_search and hublens_trending by focusing on retrieving details for a specific article rather than searching or listing trending content.

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 when you need detailed information about a known article slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hublens_search or hublens_trending. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description.

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