DouYuSearcher MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (a Markdown table with specific fields) and that it searches rooms, which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency for a search operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy, but each sentence earns its place by reinforcing clarity without unnecessary fluff.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, parameter, and return format. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like search limitations or result ordering, slightly reducing completeness for a search tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'keyword' parameter in both Chinese and English, clarifying its purpose as a search query. This adds essential meaning beyond the minimal schema, making it highly effective for parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('search for DouYu rooms by keyword') and resource ('DouYu rooms'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_room' which likely retrieves a specific room rather than searching. The bilingual format reinforces the purpose without redundancy.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'by keyword,' suggesting this tool is for finding rooms based on search terms rather than direct lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus 'get_room' or provide any exclusions or alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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