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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects unclear.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-formatted parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (3 required parameters), 0% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description does a good job of explaining the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, leaving some gaps.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'SDTM-IG version', 'Domain code', 'Variable name') and provides concrete examples (e.g., '3.4', 'AE', 'AETERM'), effectively compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('full definition of a specific SDTM variable'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sdtm_domain_variables' or 'get_adam_variable', which might provide related but different information.

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_sdtm_domain_variables' (which might list variables for a domain) or 'get_adam_variable' (which handles a different standard). It only describes what the tool does, not when it's the appropriate choice among similar siblings.

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