Hue 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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return type ('OperationResult with the local filename'), it does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, file size limits, network timeouts, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a file download tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value 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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description does not need to explain return details. However, with no annotations and a file operation that could involve permissions, errors, or performance considerations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth for safe and effective use in complex scenarios.

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 context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'remote_path' is 'the full path to the file in HDFS' and 'local_filename' is 'Local filename to save as (optional, defaults to original name)', clarifying usage and default behavior. However, it does not detail path format requirements or validation rules.

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 a single file') and resource ('from HDFS'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hue_download_directory (for directories) and hue_upload_file (reverse operation). It precisely defines the tool's scope 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 context through the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'full path to the file in HDFS'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hue_download_directory or hue_export_and_download. It provides clear operational guidance but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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