Corpus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It specifies scope ('all') implying no filtering/pagination, and 'List' implies read-only behavior. However, it lacks explicit confirmation of safety, idempotency, or what the return structure looks like (though output schema exists).

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?

Four words, front-loaded with action verb. Every word earns its place. Appropriate length for a zero-parameter retrieval tool.

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 zero input parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. However, could briefly contextualize emergency funds versus other holdings (cash vs investments) given the financial domain complexity.

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?

Zero parameters present. Per rubric, 0 params equals baseline score of 4. The empty schema requires no additional semantic clarification 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?

Clear verb ('List') and specific resource ('emergency fund holdings'). Distinguishes from sibling 'list_stock_holdings', 'list_gold_holdings', etc. by specifying the emergency fund asset type. Could achieve 5 by explicitly contrasting with portfolio summary views or relating to the 'add_emergency_fund_contribution' sibling.

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 this versus 'get_portfolio_summary' or 'get_top_holdings'. Does not mention that it pairs with 'add_emergency_fund_contribution' or when to prefer this over the generic list commands.

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