mcp-research

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial value beyond annotations: discloses SSRF protection, caching behavior, markdown conversion output format, and critical external dependency (Ollama availability) for summarization. These behavioral traits are not inferable from the structured annotations alone.

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?

Efficiently front-loaded with core action and key behaviors (SSRF, cached). Args section follows clearly. No redundant information, though the docstring format is standard rather than exceptional.

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?

Comprehensive given complexity: documents all parameters despite poor schema coverage, mentions output format (markdown), acknowledges output schema exists so return values needn't be described. Could mention rate limits or cache TTL for a 5.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description successfully documents all 3 parameters: url purpose, summarize's conditional behavior (Ollama dependency), and max_chars function. Deducted one point for not mentioning default values or valid ranges that appear in the schema.

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?

States specific action (fetch) and resource (URL) with output format (markdown). However, lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools 'web_search' and 'research' which could confuse agents on when to fetch a specific URL versus performing a search.

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?

Mentions 'SSRF-protected' implying safety for user-provided URLs, which provides implicit usage guidance. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing against siblings (web_search vs fetch_url) and doesn't mention prerequisites like network requirements beyond the Ollama reference.

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