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 disclosure burden. While 'raw' hints at the payload format, it fails to specify whether this replaces the entire TOC or partial updates, what authentication/permissions are required, or that only 'payload' is strictly required while repoId/repoNamespace are optional identifiers.

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 efficient sentence with no redundancy. However, given the complexity of the operation (mutation with nested object payload) and the presence of many similar siblings, it is arguably too terse and could benefit from front-loading the constraint that this requires manual payload construction.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately identifies the operation but leaves critical gaps. It should clarify payload structure expectations, explain that repoId/repoNamespace are alternative identifiers (not both required), and hint at atomicity or side effects of TOC updates.

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 has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), so the schema adequately documents each field. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond labeling the payload as 'raw,' which reinforces the schema's 'object' type but does not explain the payload's expected structure or the relationship between repoId and repoNamespace (either can identify the repository).

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 a specific verb ('Send') and identifies the resource ('repository TOC API'), and the term 'raw' distinguishes it from higher-level TOC manipulation siblings like yuque_update_toc or yuque_create_toc_node. However, it does not explicitly clarify when to use this low-level endpoint versus the more granular node-specific tools.

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 is provided on when to prefer this tool over siblings (yuque_update_toc, yuque_create_toc_node) or what prerequisites are needed. The description hints at low-level API access ('raw payload') but does not state that the agent must construct the payload manually versus using structured parameters.

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