yuque-mcp-plus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but only states the basic action. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether the results are paginated, or what data structure is returned. For a list operation, some safety or scope context should be provided when annotations are absent.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The structure logically flows from action (List) to object (groups/teams) to scope (user context). Minor deduction for the ambiguous 'or teams' conjunction which could confuse users about whether these are separate entities.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the basic invocation pattern. However, for a tool without annotations or output schema, it lacks completeness regarding authentication requirements, rate limiting, or the structure/pagination of returned group data that would help an agent handle the response properly.

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 schema has 100% coverage with 'Optional Yuque user ID'. The description adds meaningful semantic context by stating the tool works for 'current user or a specified user', which clarifies the default behavior when the optional parameter is omitted (returns current user's groups). This goes beyond the schema's type information.

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 ('groups or teams') with scope限定 ('for the current user or a specified user'). However, it uses 'groups or teams' without clarifying if these are distinct concepts or synonyms, and does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'yuque_list_group_members' (which lists members, not groups).

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 implies usage patterns by contrasting 'current user' versus 'specified user', which suggests when to provide the userId parameter versus omitting it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'yuque_get_repos' or what prerequisites might exist for viewing another user's groups.

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