NGSS 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 that the tool recommends standards based on overlap in domain, SEP, DCI, and CCC, and gives an example output range (2-7 compatible standards). However, it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions), which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and gives an example, but lacks details on output format or behavioral constraints (e.g., what 'compatible' means algorithmically). With no output schema, more guidance on return values would improve completeness.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the anchor_code is used for recommendations and mentions the unit_size range (2-7 in the example vs. 2-8 in schema), but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Recommend compatible NGSS standards for curriculum unit planning based on 3D framework overlap.' It specifies the verb ('Recommend'), resource ('compatible NGSS standards'), and context ('curriculum unit planning'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_standard or search_by_domain by focusing on compatibility recommendations rather than direct lookups or searches.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for curriculum unit planning based on 3D framework overlap. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., use get_standard for single standard details, search_by_domain for broader searches). The example implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions.

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