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 full burden. It mentions 'persistent storage' and 'later retrieval and execution tracking', which hints at write behavior and future use. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., overwrite implications), error handling, or response format, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 purpose ('save a plan to persistent storage') and adds value with the rationale ('for later retrieval and execution tracking'). No wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output expectations, which are important for a tool with mutation (save operation). However, the concise purpose statement provides a foundation, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or constraints). Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 action ('save') and resource ('plan') with the purpose of 'persistent storage for later retrieval and execution tracking'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_plan' (initial creation) and 'load_plan' (retrieval), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_plan' or 'update_plan' (if it exists). The description implies usage for saving plans to storage, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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