langfuse-mcp-java

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

The description uses 'Returns' implying a safe read operation, which contradicts the annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. It also fails to explain the openWorldHint=true (external system calls) or disclose why a 'get' operation would be destructive. This is a serious inconsistency.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first establishes core functionality; the second provides scope-dependent usage context. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

While the description adequately explains the variance in return cardinality (one vs many projects), it fails to address the destructive nature indicated by annotations or resolve the contradiction with the 'Returns' verb. For a tool with destructive implications, this omission is significant.

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 zero parameters (empty object) with 100% description coverage. For tools with no parameters, the baseline is appropriately met without additional parameter documentation 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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Returns the project or projects visible to the currently configured API key' — specific verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes behavior for project-scoped keys (returns one) vs broader credentials (returns many), providing clear 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?

Provides contextual usage guidance ('With broader credentials, use this to confirm which project metadata is available'), implying when the tool is valuable. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs other list/get operations) and does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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