mcp-server-ads

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this. It clarifies that 'empty' action clears a library and that note operations work on individual papers. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with conflicting operations.

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 well-structured with clear categorization (document actions vs note actions) and bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized for a multi-function tool, though the bullet format could be more concise. Every sentence 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 tool's complexity (11 actions across two domains), the description provides good coverage of what the tool does. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably handling return values, the description focuses appropriately on functional scope. It could benefit from more guidance about action selection and prerequisites.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by grouping actions into document vs note categories, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage, dependencies, or edge cases.

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 documents and notes within an ADS library, with specific actions listed for both document handling (add/remove bibcodes, set operations) and note management (get, add, edit, delete). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ads_library by focusing on document/note operations rather than general library management.

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 implied usage guidance by categorizing actions into document actions and note actions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ads_library or ads_search. It lists available operations but doesn't provide context about when each action is appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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