yuque-mcp-plus

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

Provides valuable behavioral context by disclosing the dual-source resolution logic (server config vs. heuristic), which is not captured in annotations. However, with zero annotations provided, the description should explicitly state this is a read-only operation and describe the return structure, which it omits.

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, efficient sentence front-loaded with the action verb 'Resolve'. The mechanism detail ('using server config or a fallback heuristic') earns its place by explaining the zero-parameter behavior.

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?

Appropriate for a simple lookup tool with no parameters and no output schema. The heuristic explanation provides necessary context for understanding how the default is determined, though explicitly stating the return type (repository object) would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, establishing baseline score of 4 per rubric. The description correctly implies no user input is needed for the resolution logic.

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 clearly that it determines (resolves) the default repository and explains the mechanism (server config or fallback heuristic), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `yuque_get_repo` which likely require specific IDs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives by name.

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?

Implies usage through specificity - one would use this when needing the default repository without specifying an ID. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over `yuque_get_repos` or how the fallback heuristic behaves when multiple repos exist.

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