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 full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, if there are rate limits, or how results are returned (e.g., paginated, sorted). The vague 'search for' phrase offers minimal insight into the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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: 'Search for parties, updates, or other entities'. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the tool's output or usage context.

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, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a search tool with 1 parameter and multiple sibling tools, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'Search query string (party ID, update ID, etc.)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on query syntax, examples, or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 states the tool searches for 'parties, updates, or other entities', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'search' actually does (e.g., returns results, filters data). It distinguishes from siblings like 'party_get' or 'updates_list' by implying broader search capability, but doesn't clearly articulate the verb+resource combination beyond 'search for entities'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'parties, updates, or other entities', which might imply it's for general searches, but doesn't specify when to choose it over more specific tools like 'party_updates_list' or 'update_get'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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