Lspace MCP 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 the tool can 'revert knowledge base changes' and lists types of changes (file uploads, KB generations, or both), which implies mutation behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps in transparency for a mutation tool.

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, starting with a clear purpose and followed by concise examples. Every sentence earns its place by reinforcing usage without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and usage examples but does not fully address behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, leaving room for improvement in contextual depth.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at human-friendly commands in examples, but does not provide additional syntax or format details for parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('revert') and resource ('knowledge base changes'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on undo functionality. It specifies what types of changes can be undone (file uploads, KB generations, or both), which differentiates it from tools like 'lspace_list_knowledge_base_history' (which only lists changes) or 'lspace_add_content' (which adds content).

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 clear context on when to use this tool by listing examples of undo commands (e.g., 'undo changes for test.txt', 'undo last 3 changes'), implying it's for reverting changes in a knowledge base. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., using other tools for non-undo operations), which prevents a perfect score.

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