MTA:SA Documentation 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 adds valuable context about the implementation method ('Uses vector similarity search on cached documentation and intelligent keyword matching'), which helps the agent understand how the tool works beyond just its inputs and outputs. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like search accuracy, cache freshness, or performance characteristics.

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 perfectly sized with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the method, and the third provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains zero wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (search functionality with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool does and how it works. However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like (function names, documentation snippets, relevance scores), which would be helpful since there's no output schema. The method explanation partially compensates for this gap.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('MTA:SA functions') with a specific purpose ('for a specific programming task or feature'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on task-based search rather than cache management, stats retrieval, direct documentation lookup, or category/name-based searches.

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 about when to use this tool ('Perfect for starting a new feature implementation'), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The context is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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