Context Engine MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'List all saved plans' but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'saved' entails (e.g., persistence, access controls). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with stored data.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all saved plans') and adds a brief qualifier ('with optional filtering'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of listing and filtering plans, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover return format, error handling, or interaction with other tools (e.g., 'load_plan' or 'view_progress'), leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (status, tags, limit). The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'optional filtering' but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how filtering combines or default behaviors, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all saved plans'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list-like siblings such as 'list_memories' or 'view_history', which would require mentioning the specific domain of 'plans' to avoid ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, such as whether it's for browsing, auditing, or selecting plans for further operations, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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