VULK MCP Server

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 ('get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loads the purpose and lists retrieved details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and scope of retrieved data, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, data format) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, more context on return values or usage constraints would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'projectId' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, where to find the ID, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('get details about') and resource ('a specific project'), specifying what information is retrieved (status, files, deployment URL, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list' (which would show multiple projects) and 'files' (which might focus only on files), but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'edit' or 'deploy'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific project (not listing multiple projects), but doesn't mention when to use 'get' versus 'files' (which might retrieve file details) or 'usage' (which might retrieve usage metrics). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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