Code 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 runs npm commands but doesn't describe execution context (e.g., shell environment, error handling, output format), permissions required, or side effects (e.g., file system changes). For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant examples. Every part of the description earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope.

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 of running system commands (with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address execution behavior, error cases, or output format, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool safely and effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (command, args, cwd) with basic descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies 'command' accepts npm-specific verbs like 'install' but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Run npm commands (install, test, build, etc)'. It specifies the verb ('Run') and resource ('npm commands'), and provides examples of common commands. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'install_dependencies', which could handle similar operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when npm-specific commands are preferred over general command runners like 'run_command', or how it relates to 'install_dependencies' for package installation. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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