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 mentions the tool lists documents accessible to the authenticated user, which hints at permission-based access, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination handling (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently states the core action ('List all Coda documents'), specifies the scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'), and enumerates key filtering capabilities. There is no wasted language, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose, making it highly concise and effective.

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 complexity (a list operation with 5 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and filtering options but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., response format, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema. This makes it adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for full contextual awareness.

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 description adds value by summarizing the filtering options (owner, workspace, folder, search query), which aligns with the parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly (e.g., 'isOwner' filters to user-owned docs). The description provides a high-level overview but doesn't add significant semantic details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all Coda documents accessible to the authenticated user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'coda_get_doc' (which likely retrieves a single document) or other list tools (e.g., 'coda_list_tables'), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 context by mentioning filtering capabilities (owner, workspace, folder, search query), suggesting it's for retrieving multiple documents with optional filters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'coda_get_doc' for a single document or other list tools for specific resources, providing only implied rather than clear directives.

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