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. It describes a read-only listing operation, which is clear, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of pagination (page_size) and return structure adds some behavioral context, but more could be included for a mutation-free tool.

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 usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure, but could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or performance considerations 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: directory_path as 'The HDFS directory path' with examples, and page_size as 'Maximum number of items to return' with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like path validation.

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 'list' and resource 'files and directories in an HDFS path', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like hue_check_directory_exists (checking existence) and hue_download_directory (downloading content), establishing a unique read-only browsing function.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to browse the contents of HDFS directories', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies alternatives like hue_check_directory_exists for existence checks or hue_download_directory for downloading, though it doesn't name them directly, but the guidance is sufficient for effective tool selection.

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