PlotMCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Render box plot' implying a visualization output, but lacks details on behavior: no mention of output format (e.g., image, URL), error handling, performance, or side effects. The example shows input structure but not behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a note on parameters and a clear example. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter note could be integrated more smoothly. Every sentence adds value, but slight structural improvement is possible.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and input example but lacks behavioral details and full parameter explanations. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description doesn't address mutation risks or usage context adequately.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example illustrating 'groups' and 'title' parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain other parameters like 'width', 'height', or 'color', leaving gaps. With 0% coverage, this partial compensation earns a baseline score.

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: 'Render box plot from raw values.' It specifies the verb ('Render') and resource ('box plot'), distinguishing it from siblings like plot_line or plot_scatter. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other plot types beyond the name, missing sibling-specific nuances.

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 plot_histogram or plot_scatter. It mentions 'Simple flat parameters - no nested objects!' which hints at a structural preference but doesn't define use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings.

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