PlotMCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool renders contour lines but lacks details on output format (e.g., image file, URL), performance implications, error handling, or any side effects. The mention of 'flat parameters' adds minimal context but doesn't cover critical 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 and a key constraint ('no nested objects'), followed by a helpful example. It's efficient with two sentences and an example, though the example could be more concise by omitting redundant details or integrating parameter explanations.

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 moderate complexity (rendering plots with multiple parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which should cover return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the main parameters via example but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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. The example provides concrete semantics for x, y, z, and title parameters, clarifying they are arrays and a 2D array for z with a string title. However, it doesn't explain other parameters like width, height, levels, stroke_width, x_label, or y_label, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 specific action ('Render 2D contour lines') and resource ('from grid data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like plot_heatmap or plot_scatter by focusing on contour visualization. The example reinforces the purpose with concrete data structures.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like plot_heatmap or plot_line is provided. The description mentions 'Simple flat parameters - no nested objects!' which hints at a structural constraint but doesn't clarify functional use cases or comparisons to siblings.

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