mcp-server-ads

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what each network type does (e.g., 'Groups authors who frequently co-author together'), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like rate limits, output format, or computational requirements.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by bullet points that efficiently explain the two network types. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core functionality and parameter semantics well. However, it could benefit from mentioning sibling tools or use-case examples to enhance contextual understanding.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'bibcodes' and 'type' parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the 'type' parameter options: 'author' groups co-authors, and 'paper' clusters by shared references. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum list, but doesn't provide additional details for 'bibcodes'.

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: 'Generate a collaboration or citation network from a set of papers.' It specifies the verb 'generate' and resource 'network,' and distinguishes between two network types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ads_search or ads_metrics, which might also involve paper analysis.

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 by listing two network types: 'author' for collaboration groups and 'paper' for citation clusters. This provides some context on when to choose each type, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ads_search for finding papers or ads_metrics for analysis. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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