mcp-server-ads

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations indicate this isn't read-only or destructive overall, the description clarifies that the 'delete' action is 'permanently delete' and specifies which actions require which parameters. It also mentions that 'get' returns both details and bibcodes, providing useful implementation context that annotations don't cover.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then uses a bulleted list format to efficiently present each action with its requirements. Every sentence earns its place, with zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 (8 parameters, 5 actions), the description provides complete guidance. With annotations covering safety aspects, an output schema presumably handling return values, and the description clearly explaining action selection and parameter requirements, there are no significant gaps. The description appropriately focuses on what the agent needs to know to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaningful context by grouping parameters with actions. It clarifies that library_id is required for get/edit/delete, name is required for create, and description/public are optional for create/edit. This action-parameter mapping provides semantic value beyond the individual parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 as managing ADS libraries (saved paper collections) and lists five specific actions with their required parameters. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ads_search or ads_export by focusing specifically on library management rather than searching, exporting, or other functions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action (list all libraries, get details with library_id, create with name, edit with library_id, delete with library_id) and includes parameter requirements. It clearly differentiates between actions that require library_id versus those that don't, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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