MidOS Research Protocol MCP

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only operation, but description lacks error handling (what if protocol not found?), caching behavior, or side effects. Output schema exists but description doesn't contextualize return structure.

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?

Appropriately terse two-section structure: purpose statement followed by Args documentation. No redundant text. Front-loaded with primary action. Every element earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple 1-parameter getter with output schema present. However, given the complex sibling ecosystem (episodic_search, semantic_search, etc.), description fails to situate protocols within the broader knowledge architecture or mention prerequisite steps (e.g., listing available protocols).

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 coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. The Args section successfully adds meaning: explains 'name' represents 'Protocol name' and provides concrete example ('PROTOCOL_NEURAL_LINK') indicating expected naming convention. Single parameter is well-covered.

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 specific verb ('Get') + resource ('protocol document') + scope ('specific'). Distinguishes from siblings like get_skill/get_truth by specifying 'protocol' resource type, though title is null which slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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 semantic_search, search_knowledge, or get_skill. Given the crowded namespace of retrieval tools (get_truth, get_eureka, get_skill), explicit selection criteria are missing.

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