cdisc-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't specify details like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The mention of 'release dates' adds some context about output content, but overall behavioral traits are minimally covered.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function and key output detail ('release dates'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words, making it optimally concise for a zero-parameter tool.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and hints at output content, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., data format or limitations). The existence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return value explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter explanation in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.

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 resource ('CDISC Controlled Terminology packages'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It adds useful detail about what's included ('release dates'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_products' or 'search_cdisc', 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 like 'search_cdisc' or 'list_products'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction beyond the basic purpose.

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