Corpus MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While 'List all' implies a read operation returning stored data, it lacks details on pagination behavior, data freshness/caching, authorization requirements, or what specific attributes of holdings are returned.

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 consists of a single four-word sentence with zero redundancy, front-loading the action verb ('List') and immediately specifying scope ('all') and resource ('gold holdings').

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 zero-parameter complexity and presence of an output schema (removing the need to describe return structures), this minimal description provides sufficient context for invocation. However, it could improve by noting if this retrieves physical gold, ETFs, or certificates given the domain.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters (empty properties object), establishing the baseline score of 4 as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'gold holdings', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_stock_holdings or list_emergency_fund_holdings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from aggregate portfolio views like get_top_holdings or get_portfolio_summary.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as account requirements, authentication state, or filters that might be expected given siblings like add_gold_holding and delete_gold_holding.

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