Corpus MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. 'Delete' implies destructive mutation but lacks details on permanence, cascading effects to related records, error behavior when ID doesn't exist, or what the output schema (which exists) returns.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately front-loaded with the action. However, given zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient precision—should be longer to cover behavioral traits.

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?

Adequate for a single-parameter delete operation, but misses key context for a destructive tool: no mention of confirmation requirements, return value structure (despite having output schema), or side effects on portfolio calculations.

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, description partially compensates by indicating the operation uses an 'ID' (mapping to txn_id parameter). However, it omits data type (integer), format constraints, or whether this is a database ID versus external reference.

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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'transaction' clearly. Distinguishes from siblings like 'add_transaction' or 'list_transactions' by action, but doesn't explicitly clarify domain distinction from 'delete_stock_holding' or 'delete_gold_holding' (though different resource names help).

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?

No guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to use delete_transaction vs delete_stock_holding), prerequisites, or irreversibility warnings. Agent receives no signal about validation rules or dependencies.

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