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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and text search but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'offset' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns (e.g., list of projects with fields). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search the HubLens archive...') and succinctly adds filtering details. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., what fields are included in results), error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'q' matches slug and title, 'limit' has max 100). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only listing the filter types ('category, source, and text search') without explaining semantics like what categories or sources are available. 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 ('Search') and resource ('HubLens archive of all historically tracked OSS projects'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hublens_article' or 'hublens_trending', which likely have different functions (e.g., retrieving specific articles or trending projects).

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 searching with filtering capabilities ('Supports filtering by category, source, and text search'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. It lacks context on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the search functionality.

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