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 mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned definition. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section with clear parameter explanations and examples. 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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with good semantic clarification in the description, and no complex nested structures, the description is largely complete. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., error handling) and explicit usage guidelines relative to siblings slightly reduces completeness for optimal agent operation.

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 context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'package_id' is a 'CT package identifier' and 'codelist_id' is a 'Codelist concept ID or submission value', providing examples like 'sdtmct-2024-03-29' and 'C66781', 'AGEU'. This clarifies the semantics and expected formats, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Get' and the resource 'Controlled Terminology codelist definition', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_codelist_terms' (which retrieves terms within a codelist) and 'list_ct_packages' (which lists packages rather than retrieving a specific codelist).

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 implies usage by specifying what it retrieves (a codelist definition), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_codelist_terms' or 'search_cdisc'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameter examples.

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