nist-mcp

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it discloses that the operation 'May take 6+ seconds without an NVD API key due to rate limiting,' which informs about potential delays and external dependencies. This is not contradictory to annotations and provides practical usage insight that annotations alone do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise behavioral note. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient 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's complexity (simple single-parameter query), high schema coverage, presence of annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, and performance considerations, leaving detailed return values to the output schema and not overloading the description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'cve_id' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 specific action ('Get the change history') and resource ('for a CVE'), with explicit details on what the history includes ('when it was modified, what changed (score updates, CPE additions, CWE remaps)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_cve' (which likely retrieves current CVE data) by focusing on historical changes rather than static information.

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 this tool—to retrieve modification history for a specific CVE. It implies an alternative (using 'get_cve' for current data) but does not explicitly name it or state when not to use this tool. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, though the rate-limiting note hints at performance considerations.

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