Doc2x 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 mentions retrieving status/result for an async task, which implies a read-only operation, but does not detail potential behaviors like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the result format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.

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 the key information ('Get status/result') and includes essential context (e.g., 'async image-layout parse task by uid'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of an async task status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the status/result includes (e.g., progress indicators, error messages, or output data format), which is critical for an agent to use this tool effectively. The description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 100%, with the uid parameter fully documented in the schema as a string from doc2x_parse_image_layout_submit. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the uid's purpose but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get status/result') and resource ('existing async image-layout parse task by uid'), distinguishing it from siblings like doc2x_parse_image_layout_submit (which submits tasks) and doc2x_parse_image_layout_sync (which performs synchronous parsing). It precisely identifies the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 by specifying 'existing async image-layout parse task by uid' and referencing doc2x_parse_image_layout_submit as the source of the uid, which guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like doc2x_parse_image_layout_wait_text, leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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