@bitatlas/mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical traits: the encryption method (AES-256-GCM), client-side processing, a prerequisite ('Requires BITATLAS_MASTER_KEY'), and a size limitation ('Files over 100 MB are not supported'). However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response format, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 and efficiently adds constraints in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized 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 complexity (file upload with encryption), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main action, encryption details, prerequisites, and size limits, but it lacks information on return values (e.g., success confirmation or file ID) and potential errors, which would enhance completeness for a mutation tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any specific meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'category' affects the upload or what 'folder_id' entails). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Read a local file, encrypt it client-side with AES-256-GCM, and upload it to the vault') and distinguishes it from siblings like bitatlas_get_file (retrieval), bitatlas_delete_file (deletion), and bitatlas_list_files (listing). It goes beyond just restating the name/title by detailing the encryption and upload process.

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 (uploading files to the vault with encryption) and mentions a key constraint ('Files over 100 MB are not supported via MCP'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like bitatlas_create_folder for organizing content. It implies usage for file uploads without direct comparison to siblings.

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