NOUZ MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify the return format (array of paths? IDs?), read-only nature, or error handling (what happens if the path doesn't exist?).

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action, but given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, this level of brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

With zero schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and a confusing sibling relationship ('suggest_parents'), the description should provide significantly more detail about the tool's behavior, return values, and relationship to the broader toolset.

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 coverage is 0% (the 'path' parameter has no description). The description mentions 'from file' which weakly implies the parameter is a file path, but does not specify format requirements (absolute vs relative), validation rules, or semantics. Inadequate compensation for the schema gap.

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?

States the basic action (Get parent links) and target (file), but is vague about what 'parent links' means in this domain (hierarchical? filesystem? semantic?). Critically, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'suggest_parents', which likely proposes potential parents rather than retrieving existing ones.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'suggest_parents' or 'get_children'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the file must be indexed first) or error conditions.

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