Levelang 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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context by specifying what information is returned (language codes, levels, moods, modes), but lacks details on format, pagination, or potential constraints. This is adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 usage guidance and return information. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—no waste or redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and what information is returned. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers the tool's role in the context of sibling tools. This provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it does mention that the tool helps discover 'valid language codes, proficiency levels, mood options, and mode options,' which indirectly clarifies the output context. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as the description provides useful output-related context without redundancy.

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: 'List all languages supported by Levelang with their available levels and moods.' This is specific (verb: 'List', resource: 'languages'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than translation. The mention of 'valid language codes, proficiency levels, mood options, and mode options' further clarifies its role in providing configuration data.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover valid language codes, proficiency levels, mood options, and mode options before calling the translate tool.' It provides clear context (preparation for translation) and names an alternative ('translate tool'), effectively guiding the agent on usage versus siblings like 'translate' and 'translate_compare'.

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