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. It mentions the tool is 'useful for quick reference,' implying it's a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return values look like (e.g., code snippets, formats) or address potential behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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, with the parameter 'function_name' documented as 'The exact function name (case-sensitive).' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Get only the code examples for a specific MTA:SA function.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('code examples'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mtasa_function_docs' which might provide full documentation instead of just examples. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Useful for quick reference when generating code.' This suggests a context (code generation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_mtasa_function_docs' for full docs or 'find_mtasa_functions_for_task' for task-based searches). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned.

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