Doxygen 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 states the tool 'analyzes' and 'identifies,' implying a read-only or diagnostic operation, but it doesn't specify whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with project structures.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which earns a high score for conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (analyzing project structure), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective use without additional information.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't add any meaning to the 'project_path' parameter beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain the expected format, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score due to the lack of compensation for the schema gap.

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 with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('project structure'), and it identifies a specific outcome ('identify documentation opportunities'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suggest_file_patterns' or 'validate_documentation' that might also relate to documentation analysis, which prevents 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'check_doxygen_install' or 'generate_documentation', there's no indication of how this tool fits into a workflow or when it's preferred over others.

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