Corpus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only enumerates valid values for the "type" parameter. It fails to mention side effects, reversibility (despite delete_transaction existing), validation rules (e.g., amount precision), or output format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose followed by inline parameter hints. There is no redundant prose, though extreme brevity leaves significant documentation gaps given the parameter complexity.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides only minimum viable context. The get_categories dependency is noted, but critical details like date formats, amount constraints, and the optional nature of description/date are omitted despite being required for correct usage.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It adds critical meaning for "type" (valid values) and "category" (source tool), but leaves "amount", "description", and "date" completely undocumented, including format requirements and optionality.

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 "Add a new income or expense transaction" explicitly states the action (Add), resource (transaction), and domain (income/expense), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like add_stock_holding or add_emergency_fund_contribution which handle other asset 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?

While it lacks explicit when/when-not comparisons to alternatives, it provides a concrete prerequisite: "category: get user category from get_categories tool," offering operational guidance for successfully invoking the tool.

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