MCP Hub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the deprecation status and migration path, but fails to clarify whether this is read-only (implied by 'List' but not stated), rate limits, or error behaviors.

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?

Extremely concise with zero waste. Two sentences deliver the essential information: the operation, deprecation status, and alternative. The [UNIFIED] [DEPRECATED] tags are front-loaded metadata that aid immediate comprehension.

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 simplicity (3 flat parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the critical deprecation context and migration path. Could be improved by briefly mentioning the return structure (list of webhook objects).

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-specific semantics. It does not explain what 'site' refers to (connection identifier?), the format of 'filter' (JSON string?), or the pagination behavior of 'limit', leaving all three parameters undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('webhooks') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the deprecation status and recommending 'Flows' instead (differentiating from directus_list_flows).

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?

Excellent guidance provided: explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('deprecated in Directus 10+') and names the specific alternative to use instead ('use Flows instead'), directly addressing the sibling directus_list_flows tool.

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