Coda 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. It discloses the basic behavior of listing controls, but does not add context on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. The description is adequate for a read operation but lacks detailed behavioral traits beyond the minimal purpose.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the tool's function and includes helpful examples ('buttons, sliders, etc.'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or advanced usage, which could be beneficial for an AI agent. It meets the minimum threshold for this context.

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 documents both parameters (docId and limit). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'control' entails or how the limit parameter interacts with the listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 ('List all') and resource ('controls in a Coda document'), with examples of controls ('buttons, sliders, etc.') that help distinguish it from sibling tools like coda_list_rows or coda_list_tables. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage when needing to list controls in a Coda document, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coda_list_formulas or coda_list_columns) or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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