CC Explorer 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 lists votes but doesn't describe return format, pagination, sorting, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 front-loads the key information ('List all governance votes') and adds clarifying detail ('in progress and closed') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of listing governance votes, the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to describe return values. The description doesn't address format, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('all governance votes') and statuses ('in progress and closed'), which provides context beyond the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when the description adds meaningful context.

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 ('List all') and resource ('governance votes'), specifying both in-progress and closed statuses. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'governance_get' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving a specific vote. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'updates_list' or 'party_updates_list' beyond the resource type.

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, compare with sibling tools like 'search' for filtered queries, or indicate scenarios where listing all votes is preferred over other methods. Usage is implied by the resource scope but lacks explicit context.

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