mcp-dashboards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about available themes and mix-and-match capabilities, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like response format, performance characteristics, or any limitations beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that cover core functionality and customization options. The theme list is comprehensive but could be more concise. Overall, it's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex schema with 11 parameters and nested objects, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and customization options. However, with no output schema and rich parameter structure, it could benefit from more guidance about expected outputs or common usage patterns for such a comprehensive dashboard tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning theme options and mix-and-match capabilities, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 'render' with the resource 'full dashboard' and specifies components (KPI cards, charts, optional hero metric). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it's a comprehensive dashboard tool rather than individual chart components like 'render_bar_chart' or 'render_pie_chart'.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for rendering complete dashboards with multiple components) and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that render individual charts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives for simpler use cases.

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