cdisc-mcp

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. It states the tool retrieves a definition, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential errors (e.g., invalid inputs), rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned definition. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are concise and use examples efficiently. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating usage context or behavioral details more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (3 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameters well and relies on the output schema for return values. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter with examples (e.g., 'version: ADaM version, e.g. "1.3"'), clarifying their roles and expected formats. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it could benefit from more detail on constraints or valid values.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the definition of a specific ADaM variable.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('ADaM variable'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., 'get_sdtm_variable'), which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to know the ADaM version and data structure beforehand, and does not mention sibling tools like 'get_adam_datastructures' or 'get_sdtm_variable' for related tasks.

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