XMI MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'detailed information' (metadata, dependencies, version), whether there are authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide usage guidance, behavioral context, or output expectations. For a tool with no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what kind of information is returned, but it only vaguely mentions 'detailed information'.

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% with the single parameter 'identifier' documented as 'Package name or xmi:id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific package'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_class_details' or 'get_enumeration' that might also retrieve detailed information about other resource types.

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. With siblings like 'list_packages' (which might list packages without details) and 'search_by_name' (which might search across resources), there's no indication of when this specific package detail retrieval is appropriate versus those other tools.

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