NOUZ 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 mentions 'filters' but does not disclose what filtering logic is used (glob patterns? regex? exact match?), return format (paths, objects, IDs?), pagination behavior, or what metadata is excluded when 'no_metadata' is used. The term 'base' remains undefined.

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?

Extreme under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. Five words for a four-parameter filtering tool is insufficient. The phrase 'with filters' is particularly wasteful given it references four specific filter parameters that are left undocumented, creating a misleading impression that the description covers the filtering capability.

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?

Inadequate for the schema complexity. With four filter parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the tool requires substantial descriptive coverage. The description omits the filtering mechanism, return structure, and domain-specific terminology ('base', 'sign'), leaving critical gaps.

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% (no parameter descriptions), and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain what 'level' (nesting depth?), 'sign' (signature? indicator?), 'subfolder' (path prefix?), or 'no_metadata' actually control. With four undocumented parameters, the agent has no semantic guidance for invocation.

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 ('List files') but uses ambiguous scope ('in base' - unclear if this means a database, root directory, or specific workspace). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'read_file' (content retrieval) or 'get_children' (hierarchical listing), leaving the agent uncertain about the specific resource domain.

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 'read_file', 'get_children', or other navigation tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the 'base' needs to be initialized first) or when filtering is preferable to retrieving all files.

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