cdisc-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it lists terms, has a max limit of 100 shown, and requires checking 'has_more' for pagination. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'has_more' entails, leaving gaps in transparency for a read operation.

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 main purpose stated first followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly or adding bullet points for clarity.

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 complexity (a read operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which likely covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and key behavior (limit, has_more), but lacks context on errors, authentication, or how to interpret results beyond the output schema, leaving room for improvement.

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 meaning by explaining that 'package_id' is a 'CT package identifier' and 'codelist_id' is a 'Codelist concept ID or submission value', clarifying the semantics beyond the bare schema. Since there are only 2 parameters and the description covers both adequately, it scores well but not perfectly due to lack of format or example 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'valid terms in a CT codelist', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_codelist' or 'search_cdisc', which might have overlapping functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation for 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 like 'get_codelist' or 'search_cdisc'. It mentions a limit of 100 terms and checking 'has_more', which implies usage for pagination, but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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