Corpus MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose pagination behavior (despite 'limit' parameter), sorting order, null handling (all nulls = return all?), or output structure. Only mentions date format and type enum constraints.

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 terse three-sentence structure with no waste. Front-loads the purpose. However, given the severe lack of schema documentation, this brevity arguably underserves the agent's information needs.

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?

With output schema present, description correctly omits return value details. However, given 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description inadequately covers parameter semantics (missing category and limit) and lacks behavioral context expected for a list operation.

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 compensates by documenting valid 'type' enum values ('income', 'expense', 'all') and date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for temporal fields. However, leaves 'category' values and 'limit' semantics completely undocumented.

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?

Provides specific verb (List) and resource (transactions), indicating filtered retrieval. Lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like get_cashflow_trend that may also return transaction data, though the verb distinguishes from 'add' and 'delete' siblings.

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 alternatives (e.g., get_cashflow_trend for aggregates), nor when filters are required versus optional. Only provides parameter value hints.

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