XAPIHub MCP Extension

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 'comprehensive filtering and pagination options,' which hints at functionality, but fails to cover critical aspects like read/write nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with multiple parameters.

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 core purpose ('search for projects in an organization') and adds key features ('comprehensive filtering and pagination options') without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately concise.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use. The high parameter count and absence of structured support demand more descriptive depth.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying filtering and pagination, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline 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 action ('search for projects') and the target ('in an organization'), with additional context about filtering and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recent_accessed_projects' by emphasizing comprehensive search capabilities rather than recent access. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-like tools, keeping it from 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'comprehensive filtering and pagination options' but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without annotations or explicit sibling comparisons, the agent lacks context for tool selection.

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