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 searches by keyword but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), what happens on no matches, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a concise 'Args' section with a clear example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple search tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'query' parameter as a 'Search keyword' and provides examples ('adverse event', 'AEDECOD', 'demographics'), clarifying its purpose and usage. With only one parameter and no schema descriptions, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail constraints like length or special characters.

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: 'Search across all CDISC standards by keyword.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (CDISC standards), and scope (all standards). It distinguishes from siblings like get_codelist or get_sdtm_domains by emphasizing cross-standard search rather than retrieving specific structured data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with potential similar search tools (none listed), keeping it from 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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_codelist (for code lists) or get_sdtm_domains (for specific domain data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the search functionality, but explicit context is lacking.

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