MCP DeepWiki Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced content organization and filtering capabilities' but lacks details on critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'enhanced' entails. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from capabilities. Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how 'enhanced' features work, leaving gaps for the agent. With no output schema and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide sufficient information for reliable tool invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'filtering capabilities' which loosely relates to parameters like contentFilter and mode, but doesn't elaborate on their semantics or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('GitHub repository documentation from DeepWiki'), and mentions enhanced capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deepwiki_search or deepwiki_summarize, which likely have different retrieval or processing approaches.

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 its siblings (deepwiki_search, deepwiki_summarize). It mentions 'enhanced content organization and filtering capabilities' but doesn't specify what makes it preferable or when alternatives should be considered, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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