PureScript MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about prerequisites (IDE server running) and the tool's value (understanding function expectations/returns), but doesn't describe behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens when the search fails. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides prerequisites and value. Every element earns its place with no redundant information, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and prerequisites well, but doesn't address what the tool returns (type signatures in what format?) or how it behaves with partial matches. Given the complexity and lack of output schema, more detail about return values would improve completeness.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'search' interacts with 'currentModule' or what 'filters' objects contain). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Look up the type signature of functions, variables, or values in PureScript code.' It specifies the verb ('look up'), resource ('type signature'), and target ('functions, variables, or values'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getFunctionNames' or 'getTopLevelDeclarations' that might retrieve different information about PureScript code.

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 with prerequisites ('IDE server running and modules loaded') and a usage scenario ('Helpful for understanding what a function expects and returns'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getFunctionNames' or 'getTopLevelDeclarations', which could help with sibling differentiation.

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