Hue 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. It discloses the boolean return behavior ('True if exists, False otherwise'), which is helpful, but lacks details on error handling, permissions needed, or performance characteristics. It adds some value but misses key behavioral traits for a file system operation.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly 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, boolean output), the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, parameter meaning, and return value. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error cases) to be fully comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear explanation of the single parameter ('directory_path: The HDFS directory path to check'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers the parameter semantics for this simple tool.

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 verb ('check if exists') and resource ('directory in HDFS'), distinguishing it from siblings like hue_list_directory (which lists contents) or hue_download_directory (which downloads). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 for verifying directory existence in HDFS, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., hue_list_directory for more detailed info) or any prerequisites. It provides basic context but no exclusions or comparative advice.

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