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 'comprehensive information' but lacks details on traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or pagination. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with no structured safety or behavior hints.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized for its content, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.

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 a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what types of information are returned, how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'detail_level') with descriptions and an enum. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or context for the 'detail_level' options, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the tool performs a 'general search query to get comprehensive information on any topic', which clarifies its purpose as a search function. However, it's vague about what resources or domains it searches (e.g., code, APIs, documentation), and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'find_apis' or 'get_documentation', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_apis' or 'get_documentation'. The description implies it's for general searches, but without context on exclusions or specific use cases, it offers minimal direction for selection among siblings.

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