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 discloses that the tool retrieves details (implying read-only) and mentions Designer mode behavior, but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format. It adds some context but is incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a crucial usage note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (read operation with one parameter) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and a key behavioral note, but could improve by hinting at the return structure or error cases. However, it's sufficient for effective use.

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 (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Component ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining ID format or examples, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of an HTML component including HTML, CSS, and JS content.' It distinguishes from siblings like html.list (lists components) and html.getByName (gets by name rather than ID), making the purpose specific and 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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'In Designer mode, searches currently selected screen - use screen.select first if needed.' This provides clear context for usage, including a prerequisite action (screen.select) and a specific mode (Designer mode), which helps the agent avoid errors.

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