Hue MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation returns an 'OperationResult with list of downloaded files', which adds some context about output format. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing local files, error handling, or performance implications for large directories.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting enhances readability while maintaining brevity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description does well by fully documenting parameters and stating the return type. However, as a file transfer operation with potential side effects, it could benefit from more behavioral context about safety and constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 3 parameters: directory_path specifies the source, local_directory specifies the destination with default, and file_pattern explains filtering with a concrete example. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Download all files') and resource ('from an HDFS directory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hue_download_file (single file) and hue_list_directory (listing only). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 through the parameter explanations (e.g., filtering with file_pattern), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hue_download_file or hue_export_and_download. It provides clear functional context but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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