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 data ('Get all variables'), implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, 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 highly concise and well-structured, with a clear main sentence followed by bullet-pointed parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 basics, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects and sibling differentiation, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 basic semantics for both parameters by providing examples (e.g., 'SDTM-IG version, e.g. "3.4"' and 'Two-letter domain code, e.g. "DM", "AE", "LB"'), which clarifies their expected formats. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate by explaining constraints like valid version ranges or domain codes, keeping it at the baseline for partial enhancement.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all variables defined in an SDTM domain'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sdtm_variable' or 'get_sdtm_domains', which prevents 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, such as how it differs from 'get_sdtm_variable' (which might fetch a single variable) or 'get_sdtm_domains' (which lists domains). Without any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings, usage is implied but not clarified.

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