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 mentions the tool 'returns combined documentation for code generation,' which hints at output behavior, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or how the 'combined' output is structured. 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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second adds context and output intent. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 (batch retrieval with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at output use ('for code generation'), but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output structure. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('function_names' and 'include_examples'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no details on function name formats or example types). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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: 'Fetch documentation and examples for multiple MTA:SA functions at once.' It specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('documentation and examples'), and scope ('multiple MTA:SA functions'), distinguishing it from single-function siblings like 'get_mtasa_function_docs'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_mtasa_function_examples' regarding example inclusion, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 context: 'Ideal for gathering all necessary info for implementing a feature.' This suggests when to use it (batch documentation retrieval for feature implementation) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_mtasa_function_docs' for single functions or 'find_mtasa_functions_for_task' for discovery). No misleading information is present.

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