XMI MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits like error handling, performance, or output format. It mentions 'parents and children' which aligns with the 'direction' parameter, but lacks details on depth limits, traversal order, or what 'chain' entails structurally.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective agent invocation.

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 50% (only 'identifier' has a description), but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies 'direction' through 'parents and children' (matching 'both'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics like how 'identifier' is resolved. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('inheritance chain for a class'), specifying it includes parents and children. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_class_details' or 'find_classes' by focusing on inheritance relationships, though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives.

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 implies usage when inheritance hierarchy is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_class_details' (which might include inheritance) or 'search_by_name'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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