MCP-researcher 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool checks for 'deprecated features,' implying a read-only analysis, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured results, or handles errors. This leaves key behavioral traits unclear for a tool with no annotation support.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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 complexity of checking deprecated code (which may involve analysis and interpretation), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations, no output schema, and the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively in context.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents both parameters ('code' and 'technology') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Check if code or dependencies might be using deprecated features.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('code or dependencies'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_apis' or 'search', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'find_apis' or 'get_documentation', nor does it specify contexts where this tool is preferred or excluded. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent in selecting the right tool.

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