IdeaLift MCP Server

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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: specifically mentions plan limit validation behavior that could cause invocation failure. Annotations already indicate non-destructive write (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false), so description's contribution of the plan limits check is meaningful additional context.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb. Second sentence earns its place by conveying critical operational behavior (plan limit validation) that affects invocation success.

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?

Adequate for a creation tool with 6 parameters. Plan limits mention satisfies critical behavioral disclosure. No output schema exists, so absence of return value description is acceptable. Could strengthen by describing failure behavior when limits exceeded, but sufficient for complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% with all 6 parameters well-documented. Description mentions no specific parameters, but with complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate—description doesn't need to compensate for documentation gaps or add redundant parameter details.

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?

Specific verb 'Create' with clear resource 'idea' and scope 'in the workspace'. Effectively distinguishes from siblings: contrasts with get_idea/list_ideas/query_ideas (read operations), update_idea (modification), and create_ticket/create_relationship (different resource types).

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?

Mentions 'Checks plan limits before creating' which implies a usage constraint, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., when to prefer create_idea vs normalize_idea) or alternative recommendations. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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