Source Parts 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 return includes 'barcodes, OCR text, and metadata', which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it doesn't cover error handling, permissions, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation, which are significant gaps 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameter and hints at return content, though it could better address behavioral aspects like error cases or usage context relative to siblings.

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 meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'short_code', explaining it's an 'Item short code (e.g., SP-XXXXXX)', which clarifies its format and purpose beyond the schema's basic type. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensates well, though it could provide more examples or constraints.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('identified PCB/component'), specifying it's by short code. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_part_details' by focusing on identified items with short codes rather than general part details, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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 you have a short code for an identified item, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_part_details' or 'check_identification_status'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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