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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool retrieves documentation from a wiki, caches results in SQLite with vector embeddings for performance, and mentions the caching mechanism ('faster subsequent access'). However, it does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 first sentence covering the core purpose and the second adding important behavioral context (caching). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy 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 tool's moderate complexity (fetching and caching documentation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, data source, caching behavior, and what information is included. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of the documentation object) and potential errors, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('function_name' and 'use_cache') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the function_name is used to fetch documentation and that caching affects performance, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or usage nuances for the 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 specific action ('Get detailed documentation') and resource ('for a specific MTA:SA function from the wiki'), including what information is retrieved ('description, syntax, parameters, returns, and code examples'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_mtasa_function_examples' by specifying comprehensive documentation rather than just examples.

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 for when to use this tool ('Get detailed documentation for a specific MTA:SA function'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving full documentation rather than partial information, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like 'get_multiple_mtasa_function_docs' for batch operations.

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