Magento 2 Coding Standards MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output format ('summary...grouped by category, showing counts of errors and warnings'), which is useful. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., is this a read-only operation?), performance considerations (e.g., latency, rate limits), or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get a summary') and avoids unnecessary details. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource, grouping method, and data included.

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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the format of the output, but it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, the description provides a basic understanding but could be more complete by addressing missing behavioral context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a summary of all Magento coding standard rules grouped by category, showing counts of errors and warnings.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('Magento coding standard rules'), and output format ('summary...grouped by category, showing counts of errors and warnings'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_rules' or 'explain_rule', which might offer similar rule-related information.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_rules' (which might list individual rules) or 'explain_rule' (which might provide detailed explanations), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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