brilliant-directories-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the meta_id doesn't exist. The description doesn't mention whether this is a safe operation or has any side effects.

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 maximally concise at just 5 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic function.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'metadata record' contains, how it differs from user data, what format the response takes, or any behavioral characteristics. The minimal description leaves too many unanswered questions for effective tool use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only that meta_id is a required integer. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what meta_id represents, where to find valid values, or how it relates to the metadata record being retrieved. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Get a single metadata record' clearly states the action (get) and resource (metadata record), but it's vague about what 'metadata' refers to in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getUser' or 'listUserMeta', leaving ambiguity about the specific type of metadata being retrieved.

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. With siblings like 'listUserMeta' (for multiple records) and 'getUser' (for user data rather than metadata), there's no indication of when this single-record retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other get operations in the system.

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