Corpus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure but reveals no behavioral traits. It does not indicate that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination limits, or describe the return format (though an 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?

The single sentence is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and contains no redundant information. However, it is minimal to the point of under-specification, lacking the richness that would earn a top score.

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 tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, significant gaps remain regarding sibling differentiation and behavioral context that would help an agent select this tool appropriately in a portfolio management context.

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, which per the guidelines establishes a baseline score of 4. With no parameters to describe, the schema and description are trivially aligned.

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 clearly states the verb (List) and resource (mutual fund holdings), expanding the snake_case name into readable form. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like list_stock_holdings or list_gold_holdings, which are similar list operations for different 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_top_holdings or list_stock_holdings, nor does it specify prerequisites or filtering capabilities. It merely states what the tool does.

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