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 'Get[s] all data collection fields,' implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief but informative, avoiding unnecessary details. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly, rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in an otherwise sufficient context.

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 semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'version' is a 'CDASH version, e.g. "2.0"' and 'domain' is a 'Domain code, e.g. "DM", "AE", "VS"', providing concrete examples and context. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could be more detailed (e.g., explaining valid ranges).

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 all data collection fields for a CDASH domain.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('data collection fields for a CDASH domain'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_cdash_domains' (which likely lists domains) or 'get_sdtm_domain_variables' (which is for SDTM, not CDASH), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 does not mention siblings such as 'get_cdash_domains' (for listing domains) or 'get_sdtm_domain_variables' (for SDTM data), leaving the agent to infer usage based on context alone. This lack of explicit direction reduces its effectiveness in tool selection.

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