Doxygen 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 only states the action without details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and an output schema, as it fails to describe how the suggestion is generated or returned.

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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or how the output relates to the suggestion, failing to provide enough context for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters like 'project_path', 'primary_language', 'include_tests', and 'include_examples' are undocumented in the description, leaving their roles unclear.

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 states the tool's purpose as suggesting file patterns for a project, which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'suggest' and resource 'file patterns', but lacks detail on what types of patterns or how they are used, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_project' or 'create_doxygen_project' that might involve file operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for documentation, code organization, or other purposes, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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