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 effectively describes the asynchronous nature of the operation, the return format, and the required follow-up workflow. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size restrictions, supported image formats beyond png/jpg (implied by schema), or error conditions.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does and returns, the second provides critical workflow guidance. No wasted 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 (async workflow requiring follow-up calls), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the async nature and required subsequent steps. However, it doesn't describe what the parse task actually produces or potential error scenarios, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 ('Create an async image-layout parse task') and resource ('image-layout'), distinguishing it from siblings like doc2x_parse_image_layout_sync (synchronous version) and doc2x_parse_image_layout_status (status check). It explicitly mentions the return value format '{uid}' and subsequent required calls.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it specifies this is an async task that requires follow-up calls to doc2x_parse_image_layout_wait_text or doc2x_parse_image_layout_status with the returned uid. This clearly distinguishes it from the synchronous sibling tool.

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