Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions starting execution but fails to describe what happens after initiation (e.g., whether it runs asynchronously, returns an execution ID, or handles errors). For a tool that likely triggers significant system activity, this lack of detail about runtime behavior is a notable 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 immediately conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes the optional starting point, making it easy to parse 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?

For a tool that initiates workflow execution with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., execution status, ID, or error details), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like side effects or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full impact.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none 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 action ('Start workflow execution') and specifies the resource ('from a specific node or the start node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execution.getStatus' or 'execution.stop', but the verb 'Start' is sufficiently distinct from 'get' or 'stop' operations.

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 like 'codebook.runAll' or 'codebook.runCell', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its application within the broader toolset.

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