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 describes the search functionality and filtering options but lacks critical behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and key features (searching GitHub repositories with DeepWiki documentation, filtering by language and topics). It's front-loaded with essential information and contains no redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, auth), output format, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for an agent to use the tool correctly is incomplete.

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 description mentions filtering by programming language and topics, which aligns with the 'language' and 'topics' parameters in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as hinting at example values, but doesn't provide deeper semantic context or usage examples that aren't already covered.

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 searches for GitHub repositories with DeepWiki documentation, specifying the action (search) and resource (repositories). It mentions filtering capabilities (programming language, topics) which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deepwiki_fetch or deepwiki_summarize, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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_fetch, deepwiki_summarize). It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this search is preferred over alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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