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 mentions what the tool returns ('function names with their category and side') but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination behavior. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality immediately clear.

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 with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects, error handling, or usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a search tool without annotations or output schema, more context about the return format and tool behavior would be helpful.

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 all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions searching 'by name' which aligns with the 'query' parameter, and mentions 'side' filtering which matches the 'side' parameter, but provides no additional context about parameter usage, format, or interactions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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: 'Search for MTA:SA functions and events by name' with specific verb ('search') and resource ('MTA:SA functions and events'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'clear_mtasa_cache' and 'get_mtasa_cache_stats' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'find_mtasa_functions_for_task' or 'list_mtasa_functions_by_category', which appear to be similar search/filtering tools. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 any of the sibling tools like 'find_mtasa_functions_for_task' or 'list_mtasa_functions_by_category' that appear to serve similar purposes. There's no indication of when this search tool is preferred over other filtering or listing tools, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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