Thinkific 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 states the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned, format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex educational content data. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential authentication needs, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a read operation in a rich domain, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'content_id' well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'by ID,' which is already implied by the schema, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('detailed information about a specific content/lesson'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_course', 'get_chapter', or 'gql_lesson', which appear to retrieve similar educational resources, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With many sibling tools that retrieve educational content (e.g., 'get_course', 'get_chapter', 'gql_lesson'), there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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