StoryLenses MCP Server

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

Moderate disclosure: without annotations, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses analytical outputs (fit score, matching skills, gaps, narrative angle) but omits operational traits like side effects, persistence, or idempotency. For a matching/analysis tool, the output disclosure provides reasonable behavioral context.

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?

Excellent structure: single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Uses em-dash effectively to separate action from outputs. Every element 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?

Strong completion: given no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates expected analysis outputs (fit score, gaps, narrative angle). With 100% input schema coverage and nested objects handled, only minor gaps remain (explicit workflow sequencing, safety notes).

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?

Baseline appropriate: with 100% schema description coverage, the schema documents all parameters fully. The description adds semantic framing ('Match... against') that clarifies the relationship between job_analysis and candidate_cv, but doesn't need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

Excellent: uses specific verb 'Match' with clear resources (candidate profile/CV against job data), distinguishes from siblings by defining unique outputs (fit score, career gaps, narrative angle) that differentiate it from generate_letter or analyze_job.

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?

Implied usage only: the description states what the tool does but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or mentions of prerequisite steps (e.g., 'use after storylenses_analyze_job'). The parameter schema references the sibling tool, but the description text itself does not provide usage guidelines.

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