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 and excels by adding rich context beyond basic functionality. It details critical behavioral traits such as CSS structure rules to prevent bugs, mobile UI sizing guidelines, and post-creation steps like using 'layout.analyze' for fixes. This provides comprehensive insights into how the tool behaves and should be used.

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 sections like DESIGNER MODE, WORKFLOW context, and CRITICAL CSS STRUCTURE, but it is lengthy and includes some information that might be excessive (e.g., specific pixel sizes for iPhone 15). While informative, it could be more concise by focusing only on essential guidance without overloading details.

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 (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, and post-invocation steps. It addresses multiple contexts (Designer vs. Workflow) and provides practical advice, making it sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema. For example, it explains the 'target' parameter's workflow context and advises to 'ASK USER if unclear,' and it clarifies the 'container' parameter's semantic meaning in Designer mode. However, it doesn't cover all parameters in depth, keeping it from a perfect score.

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: 'Create HTML content in Circuitry.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('HTML content') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'layout.createSection' by explaining when to use each, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 usage guidelines, including when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'Use `layout.createSection` instead!' for Designer screens), context for two target options ('drawing' or 'node'), and prerequisites like asking the user if unclear. It clearly outlines when and how to apply the tool in different scenarios.

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