Thinkific MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool finds a space by ID but omits critical details: whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the ID is invalid, if authentication is required, or the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Find a space by ID') and includes a relevant qualifier ('GraphQL'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'find' entails (e.g., returns space details or just existence), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective 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 the 'id' parameter documented as 'The space ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as ID format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Find a space by ID (GraphQL)' clearly states the action (find) and resource (space), with the GraphQL qualifier distinguishing it from non-GraphQL siblings like 'get_site_info'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other GraphQL read tools (e.g., 'gql_category', 'gql_user'), which prevents a perfect 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a space ID), compare it to similar GraphQL tools, or specify use cases. This leaves the agent without context for selection among many sibling tools.

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