Deepghs MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the data sources (deepghs and CyberHarem), the automation pipeline details for CyberHarem, and the fallback behavior (suggests waifuc script generation). It doesn't contradict annotations, but could mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds specific value: data sources, automation details, parameter explanations, and return behavior. There is no wasted text, and the bullet-point format for Args and Returns enhances readability without verbosity.

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 (search across namespaces with fallback), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meanings, and return behavior, including the fallback suggestion. No gaps remain for agent 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'character_name (str): Character name to search for (e.g. 'Rem', 'Hatsune Miku')' and 'response_format (ResponseFormat): 'markdown' or 'json''. It also explains the purpose of character_name ('to search for') and the effect of response_format on output format. However, it doesn't detail constraints like maxLength for character_name.

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: 'Search for pre-built character image datasets for LoRA training on HuggingFace.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('pre-built character image datasets'), and context ('for LoRA training on HuggingFace'). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning specific namespaces (deepghs and CyberHarem) and contrasts with waifuc script generation tools.

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 guidance: 'Searches both deepghs (BangumiBase) and CyberHarem namespaces for datasets built around a specific character.' It explains when to use it ('saving you from having to run waifuc yourself') and mentions an alternative action ('suggests waifuc script generation if no pre-built dataset is found'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like deepghs_generate_waifuc_script.

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