@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 states the tool is for searching files, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and key optional feature. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Search vault files') and wastes no words, making it easy for an AI 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 moderate complexity (search with optional filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable use, though it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully documents the parameters ('query' and 'category'). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally narrowed to a category,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Search vault files by a query string, optionally narrowed to a category.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('vault files'), and scope ('by a query string, optionally narrowed to a category'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bitatlas_list_files' or 'bitatlas_get_file', which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that results can be 'optionally narrowed to a category,' but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bitatlas_list_files' (which might list all files without a query) or 'bitatlas_get_file' (which might retrieve a specific file by ID). No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are provided.

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