cerebrochain-mcp-server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses 'Premium' tier and API key requirement (auth barrier), but omits safety profile (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or response format details. 'Get' implies read-only but doesn't confirm it.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first sentence defines function and scope; second states operational constraints. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool without output schema, description adequately explains what data is returned (dashboard with targets vs actuals). Would benefit from explicit read-only declaration, but 'Get' provides sufficient context for selection.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Per scoring rules, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. Description appropriately avoids inventing parameters where none exist.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') + resource ('KPI performance dashboard') with clear scope ('targets vs actuals for all key supply chain metrics'). The 'supply chain' focus effectively distinguishes it from sibling financial/fleet tools.

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?

Provides prerequisite constraints ('Premium tool. Requires API key') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_financial_metrics or get_order_statistics. The constraints imply usage limitations but don't specify selection criteria.

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