CC Explorer 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. 'List ledger updates' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or what format the updates are returned in. It lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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 at just three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'ledger updates' means in this context, what data is returned, or how results are structured. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured output documentation, more completeness is needed.

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 100% description coverage with clear documentation for both 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides about these pagination parameters, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 'List ledger updates' clearly states the action (list) and resource (ledger updates), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'contract_updates_list' or 'party_updates_list'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about what type of updates or ledger context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contract_updates_list' or 'party_updates_list'. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between similar list tools in this server.

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