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 lists domains, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a separate 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loaded with the main functionality.

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 handles return values), one parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and parameter semantics effectively. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are minor gaps given the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation. Overall, it provides a solid foundation but could be more 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by explaining the 'version' parameter as 'CDASH version, e.g. "2.0", "1.1"', which clarifies the expected format and provides examples. This goes beyond the bare schema, effectively documenting the single required parameter. Since there is only one parameter, the description adequately covers its semantics.

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: 'List all CDASH domains for a given version.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('CDASH domains'), and scope ('for a given version'), which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cdash_domain_fields' or 'get_sdtm_domains', which might have overlapping or related functions, 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 sibling tools such as 'get_cdash_domain_fields' (which might list fields within domains) or 'get_sdtm_domains' (for a different standard), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is the need for a version parameter, but this is insufficient 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.