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 is for finding (implying a read operation) but doesn't mention critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no user is found. 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first phrase states the core purpose, followed by a brief mention of optional filters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or authentication. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has incomplete context for reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (id, communityId, userId). The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional filters, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents, such as how filters interact or format specifics. 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: 'Find a community user by ID (GraphQL).' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('community user'), and method ('GraphQL'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gql_user' or 'get_user', which likely serve similar purposes, 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 implied usage guidance by mentioning optional filters ('Optionally filter by communityId or userId'), suggesting when to use these parameters. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'gql_user' or 'search_users', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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