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. While 'Get' implies read-only access, the description fails to disclose performance characteristics (e.g., is this a cached or real-time check?), cost implications, or what specific system aspects are monitored. The word 'current' suggests freshness but lacks elaboration.

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 with no redundant words. Appropriate length for a zero-parameter status tool where the name itself carries significant meaning.

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?

Minimally viable for a simple status endpoint. While the existence of an output schema reduces the need for return value documentation, the description could improve by indicating what domain of status is returned (e.g., operational health vs. configuration state).

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, triggering the baseline score of 4. No parameters require semantic elaboration beyond the schema structure.

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?

Clearly identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('current status of the Midos hive system'). The specific mention of 'Midos hive system' effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like pool_status and project_status. However, it lacks specificity about what 'status' encompasses (e.g., health, load, connectivity).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling status tools (pool_status, project_status) or other hive-related tools. No mention of prerequisites, polling frequency recommendations, or error conditions.

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