Doc2x MCP 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 returns information for debugging, which implies it is a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. The description adds basic context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('Debug helper') and clearly states the action and purpose. There is no wasted language, and it effectively communicates the tool's role in minimal words.

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 is low (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete for a debugging utility. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on what the returned config and API key source entail, such as format or structure. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and output.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for zero parameters, since the schema fully covers the lack of 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 as a 'Debug helper' that 'return[s] resolved config and API key source for troubleshooting.' It specifies the verb ('return'), resource ('resolved config and API key source'), and context ('for troubleshooting'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are focused on conversion, download, and parsing operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage context ('for troubleshooting'), suggesting this tool should be used when debugging issues, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tools appear to serve a similar debugging purpose, so the implication is adequate but not comprehensive.

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