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 a prerequisite (IDE server must be running) and a use case (understanding project context), but does not cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or performance. This is adequate but has gaps, fitting a baseline 3.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and prerequisite, the second adds value with the use case. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a read-only utility. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which could be helpful despite the low complexity. This meets minimum viability with clear gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add param details, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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: 'Get the current working directory that the IDE server is using.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current working directory'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like 'get_server_status' or 'pursIdeList', which is why it's not a 5.

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 usage with 'PREREQUISITE: IDE server must be running' and 'Useful for understanding the project context.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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