brilliant-directories-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Full-text search' and filtering options, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a search tool with 10 parameters, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search members/users') and adds key details without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. For a search tool with many parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is low (40%), with 6 out of 10 parameters lacking descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'category, location, and sorting options', which maps to parameters like 'pid', 'tid', 'ttid', 'address', and 'sort', but doesn't explain the meaning of 'dynamic' or 'output_type', or provide details on parameter interactions. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Search') and resource ('members/users'), and specifies it's a 'Full-text search' with additional filtering options. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listUsers' (which likely lists all users without search) and 'getUser' (which retrieves a specific user), though it doesn't explicitly name 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 for searching members with specific filters (category, location, sorting), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'listUsers' or 'getUser'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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