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 states the tool refines plans based on feedback, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format. It adds some context (e.g., iteration after review), but doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits like error handling or plan persistence.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, input), but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'feedback or clarifications' repeated). Most sentences earn their place, though it could be slightly more concise by merging overlapping points.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'refine' entails operationally) and output format. It's adequate but has gaps in transparency.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing parameters in an 'Input' section with brief explanations, but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers (e.g., JSON structure for 'current_plan'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('refine') and resource ('existing implementation plan'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_plan' (for initial creation) and 'compare_plan_versions' (for comparison). It explicitly mentions iteration based on feedback or clarifications.

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 explicit guidance in a 'When to use this tool' section with four bullet points, including scenarios like after reviewing a plan, answering questions, adding detail, or changing approach. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_plan' (for initial creation) and 'rollback_plan' (for reverting).

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