Corpus MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Delete' implying destruction but fails to disclose critical financial operation details: whether action is irreversible, if it cascades to delete transaction history, or impacts portfolio calculations. No mention of authorization requirements.

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?

Extremely concise (5 words) with action front-loaded. No wasted text. However, excessive brevity given the lack of supporting annotations and schema descriptions leaves significant gaps.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive financial operation with zero annotation coverage. Missing: irreversibility warnings, side effects on related records (transactions), parameter sourcing guidance, and success/failure behavior despite existence of output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description mentions 'by ID', mapping to the holding_id parameter and clarifying its role as identifier. However, fails to explain where to obtain valid IDs (e.g., from list_stock_holdings) or constraints beyond the integer type.

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?

Clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('stock holding'). Effectively distinguishes from sibling delete_gold_holding and delete_transaction by specifying the target resource. Would be 5 if it clarified scope (e.g., whether this removes historical data or just the position).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives like update_stock_holding or delete_transaction, nor prerequisites (e.g., requiring liquidation first). Simply states the action without context.

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