PureScript 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. It discloses prerequisites (IDE server running, modules loaded) and the tool's purpose, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, output format, or whether it's read-only or mutating. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's incomplete for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and usage context but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured safety or output info, it should do more to compensate.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (target_modules and max_concurrent_requests). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a dependency graph showing which functions/types use which others in PureScript modules.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('dependency graph'), and scope ('PureScript modules'), distinguishing it from siblings like getImports or pursIdeUsages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., getTopLevelDeclarations might overlap in code analysis).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful for understanding code relationships and refactoring impact.' It includes prerequisites: 'IDE server must be running and modules must be loaded.' This gives explicit guidance on necessary conditions. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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