DevDocs MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the default behavior (searching popular techs when none specified) and provides examples, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, immediately provides usage guidance, explains default behavior, and gives practical examples. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 moderate complexity (cross-documentation search), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it covers purpose and usage well, it lacks information about the response format, result structure, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool that searches across multiple documentations, the agent needs more context about what to expect in return.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior when techs aren't specified (searches popular technologies) and providing concrete examples showing parameter usage. It clarifies that 'techs' is optional and shows the syntax for specific tech versions ('python~3.10'). This elevates the score above the baseline.

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: searching for a term across multiple documentations simultaneously. It specifies the verb 'busca' (search) and the resource 'MÚLTIPLES documentaciones', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_documentation' which likely searches within a single documentation. The description explicitly mentions this is useful when you don't know which technology to search in.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when you don't know which technology to search in. It also specifies what happens when you don't provide techs (searches in popular technologies) and gives concrete examples showing both default and specific usage scenarios. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives like 'search_documentation'.

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