NOUZ MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Recalculate' implies computation but does not disclose whether this modifies persistent state (destructive), requires specific permissions, or is idempotent. Critical behavioral traits remain unspecified.

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?

Four-word description with zero redundancy. Every term contributes specific domain meaning ('etalon' indicates calibration standard, 'embeddings' indicates vector representations).

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter tool, but given the presence of similar sibling tools ('recalc_core_mix') and lack of output schema, the description should explain the domain-specific 'etalon' concept and side effects to be complete.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, establishing baseline of 4. Description appropriately requires no parameter clarification.

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?

Provides specific verb ('Recalculate') and resource ('core etalon embeddings'), identifying the operation clearly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'recalc_core_mix' or 'embed', leaving ambiguity about which recalculation tool to use.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus 'recalc_core_mix' or 'recalc_signs', nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description states what the tool does but not when an agent should invoke it.

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