@bitatlas/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 mentions optional filtering but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination, sorting, default listing behavior (e.g., all files if no filters), error handling, or authentication requirements. For a list operation without annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List files in the vault') and follows with optional features. There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly. It appropriately balances brevity with essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list structure, file details), behavioral aspects like pagination or rate limits, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a list operation with three parameters and no structured output guidance, more context is needed to ensure reliable agent invocation.

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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (folderId, category, search). The description adds minimal value by listing the filter types ('folder, category, or search term'), which aligns with but doesn't significantly expand upon the schema. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('files in the vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitatlas_search' or 'bitatlas_get_file', which likely have overlapping functionality for retrieving files. A 5 would require specific distinction from these alternatives.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'Optionally filter by folder, category, or search term,' suggesting this tool is for listing with optional filtering. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'bitatlas_search' (which might offer more advanced search capabilities) or 'bitatlas_get_file' (for retrieving a single file). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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