MTA:SA Documentation 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, what statistics are included (e.g., hit rates, size, latency), or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get statistics'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted text.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data. It doesn't hint at what statistics are provided (e.g., cache size, hit/miss rates, timestamps), leaving users uncertain about the return format. For a stats-retrieval tool, this omission reduces its usefulness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, as there are none to document. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('statistics about the MTA:SA documentation cache'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_mtasa_cache' (which modifies the cache) and 'get_mtasa_function_docs' (which retrieves content rather than statistics). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from 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 alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like monitoring cache health, troubleshooting performance, or comparing with other cache-related tools. With siblings like 'clear_mtasa_cache' and 'get_mtasa_function_docs', users are left to infer usage based on the name alone.

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