NOUZ MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It does not state whether indexing is destructive (overwrites existing indices), idempotent, how long it takes for large databases, or what the return value indicates. The safety profile and side effects are completely opaque.

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 extremely concise at five words, and while it avoids filler, it is undersized for the complexity of the tool. The structure is front-loaded (verb-first), but the brevity results in insufficient information transfer for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description needs to explain parameters, return values, and behavioral characteristics. It explains only the basic action, leaving critical gaps in how to interpret the boolean parameter and what the operation returns or affects.

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% for the 'with_embeddings' boolean parameter, and the description completely fails to compensate. There is no mention of this parameter despite it being the only configuration option for the tool. The description must explain what embeddings are generated and their impact on the indexing behavior, but it does not.

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 states the basic action (index) and scope (all files in database), but 'index' is ambiguous—it could mean creating search indices, updating database indexes, or generating embeddings. Given the 'with_embeddings' parameter and 'embed' sibling tool, the description fails to clarify whether this creates a search index or relates to the embedding process.

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 versus 'list_files' (which likely just retrieves file metadata) or 'embed' (which may handle vector generation). No mention of when to set 'with_embeddings' to true versus false, or whether this operation should be run routinely or as a one-time setup.

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