Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the Designer mode dependency, which is useful context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on connected elements, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a contextual note. It consists of two concise sentences with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like reversibility, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe usage. The context provided is minimal and doesn't compensate for the missing structured information.

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%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'Component ID' in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining how to obtain the ID or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('HTML component from the drawing layer'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodes.delete' or 'layout.delete', which might also delete elements in related contexts.

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 some context with 'In Designer mode, operates on currently selected screen,' which implies usage depends on the application mode. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'html.update' or other deletion tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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