langfuse-mcp-java

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

The description claims 'Read-only' but annotations declare 'readOnlyHint: false' and 'destructiveHint: true'. This is a direct contradiction that misrepresents the operation's safety profile. The description fails to disclose what destructive action occurs (deletion, modification) or why 'openWorldHint' is true.

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 two-sentence structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded, but the brevity is undermined by the inclusion of the erroneous 'Read-only' claim which wastes no words but conveys false information.

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 destructive operation (per annotations), the description inadequately explains the consequences or side effects. With no output schema and minimal description, critical behavioral context is missing despite the simple single-parameter input structure.

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 parameter 'scoreId' is already fully documented as 'Score ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value regarding the parameter's format or usage, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Fetch[es] a single evaluation score by ID', specifying the verb (fetch), resource (evaluation score), and scope (single/by ID), which distinguishes it from sibling 'get_scores'. However, the accuracy is compromised by the contradictory safety claim.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this single-item fetch versus the plural 'get_scores', nor are prerequisites or alternatives mentioned. The description is too minimal to guide tool selection.

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