MidOS Research Protocol MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'search' implies read-only behavior, the description doesn't confirm this, nor does it disclose search methodology (keyword vs. semantic), rate limits, or auth requirements. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral traits remain undocumented.

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 appropriately concise with a clear one-line summary followed by structured Args documentation. No extraneous text is present, though the Args section slightly duplicates schema structure (necessary here due to lack of schema descriptions).

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and existence of an output schema, parameter coverage is adequate. However, given the rich sibling ecosystem with multiple search/memory tools, the description lacks necessary differentiation guidance, leaving a significant contextual gap for agent selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively via the Args section. It clarifies that 'query' accepts 'keywords or topic' and documents the default value (5) for 'max_results', adding necessary semantic context missing from the raw schema.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('Midos knowledge base'), providing specific scope. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'semantic_search' or 'episodic_search', which is critical given the similar tool names on this server.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semantic_search', 'episodic_search', or 'get_truth'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context is provided.

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