langfuse-mcp-java

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

CRITICAL CONTRADICTION: Description explicitly states 'Read-only' but annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a severe safety misrepresentation that could mislead agents into invoking destructive operations under the assumption they are safe reads.

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 highly concise at only two sentences with no冗余. However, the brevity backfires as the second sentence ('Read-only.') contains the critical contradiction, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description fails to address the surprising destructive behavior indicated by annotations, lacks output format details, and provides no error conditions. The false safety claim renders the behavioral description incomplete and potentially hazardous.

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 coverage and a single parameter fully described in the schema as 'Score config ID', the baseline is appropriate. The description adds no additional semantics, examples, or format guidance beyond the schema definition.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('score config schema') with specific scoping ('by ID'), distinguishing it from the plural sibling 'get_score_configs'. However, the 'Read-only' claim introduces ambiguity given the contradictory destructive annotation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this singular retrieval versus 'get_score_configs' (plural list) or how it relates to 'get_score'. The description only states functionality without comparison to alternatives.

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