Node Dev MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'ripgrep (rg)' which implies regex-based searching, but doesn't describe important behaviors like search scope (e.g., recursive vs. shallow), performance characteristics, error handling, or what happens with large result sets. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently includes implementation details.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., file paths, line numbers, matches), how results are formatted, whether there are limitations on search depth or file types, or how to interpret the output. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Search file contents') and resource ('in the workspace'), and mentions the implementation method ('using ripgrep (rg)'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_entries' by specifying content search vs. entry search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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 like 'search_entries', 'list_dir', or 'read_file'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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