Thinkific MCP Server

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 states this is a read operation ('Returns'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the chapter data comes in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place efficiently.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what data is returned, authentication requirements, and how this differs from similar tools. The current description is too minimal for a tool that presumably returns structured chapter data through a GraphQL interface.

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 mentions the parameter ('by ID') which aligns with the single 'id' parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents this parameter well, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured data. 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 action ('Returns') and resource ('a Chapter by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_chapter' or 'list_chapters' beyond mentioning GraphQL, which is helpful but not fully distinguishing.

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 'get_chapter' or 'list_chapters'. It mentions GraphQL, but doesn't explain why one would choose this GraphQL-based tool over other query methods, leaving the agent without usage context.

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