Statly Docs 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 but offers minimal information. It mentions searching documentation but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., links, summaries, full text), how results are ranked, whether there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Search Statly documentation for a topic'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity (a search function with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how to interpret results, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond knowing it performs searches.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensation needed.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Statly documentation'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search functionality from sibling tools like get_api_reference or get_sdk_reference, which might also retrieve documentation content through different mechanisms.

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 doesn't mention when this search tool is appropriate compared to the sibling tools (get_api_reference, get_code_example, get_sdk_reference), nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual constraints for its use.

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