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 'find and evaluate APIs,' implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves external API calls. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding the core functionality, making it highly concise 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 (involving API finding and evaluation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'evaluate' entails, the format of results, or any constraints like data sources or evaluation criteria. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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, so the schema already documents both parameters ('requirement' and 'context') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying how 'evaluate' relates to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose as 'Find and evaluate APIs that could be integrated into a project,' which includes a specific verb ('find and evaluate') and resource ('APIs'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search' or 'get_documentation,' which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'search' or 'get_documentation.' It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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