MCP-Upstage-Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so effectively. It describes the tool's capabilities (extraction from multiple document types without pre-training), constraints (file formats, size limits, page limits), and operational modes (schema-provided vs auto-generated). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but covers the core behavioral aspects well for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, technical constraints, schema format details, and an example. Every section earns its place, though the schema format explanation is quite detailed (which is necessary given the complexity). It could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 complexity (4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive context about what the tool does, how to use it, technical constraints, and parameter semantics. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or output format, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, it covers most other aspects thoroughly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description compensates excellently by explaining all parameters' purposes and relationships. It clarifies that file_path is required, explains the schema_path vs schema_json options, details the auto_generate_schema default and behavior, and provides a comprehensive schema format example with concrete syntax. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 specific action ('extract structured information'), the resource ('documents'), and the technology used ('Upstage Universal Information Extraction'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like classify_document, generate_schema, and parse_document by focusing specifically on information extraction rather than classification, schema generation, or general parsing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it explains the two modes (schema-provided vs auto-generated) and mentions sibling tools like generate_schema that could be alternatives for schema creation. It also specifies technical constraints (file formats, size limits, page limits) that help determine when the tool is applicable.

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