flyte-mcp

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 mentions the tool lists 'public' symbols, which hints at access scope, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output format entails. This leaves significant gaps in transparency for an API listing tool.

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 that front-loads the core action ('List public Flyte V2 API symbols') and appends key parameter information. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and low complexity with one optional parameter, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details like access controls or response structure, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a listing tool in a developer API context.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'kind' by explaining it's an optional filter for 'function, class, constant', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's minimal title 'Kind'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it could detail allowed values more explicitly.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'public Flyte V2 API symbols', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flyte_symbol' (singular) or 'search_flyte_api', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach 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 implies usage by mentioning an 'optional kind filter' for functions, classes, or constants, suggesting when to use it for filtered listings. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_flyte_api' or 'get_flyte_symbol', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially implied.

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