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 describes a read operation ('List') but doesn't mention other traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format. While it hints at a dependency on 'list_products()', it lacks details on permissions or data sensitivity, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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: the first sentence states the purpose, and the 'Args' section efficiently explains the parameter with an example and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, potential errors), slightly reducing completeness.

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 semantics by explaining that 'version' is an 'SDTM-IG version' with examples ('3.4', '3.3'), which clarifies beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't detail all possible values or constraints, preventing a perfect score.

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 SDTM domains for a given version.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('SDTM domains'), and scope ('for a given version'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sdtm_domain_variables' or 'get_cdash_domains', which prevents a score of 5.

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 clear usage guidance by stating to 'Use list_products() first' to determine valid versions, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. It implies when to use this tool (for SDTM domains) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_cdash_domains' or specify when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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