Register an algorithm for benchmarking by providing its name, category, and description. Enables performance analysis and automated comparisons across JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python.
Register a new algorithm to benchmark
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Algorithm name | |
| category | No | Algorithm category | |
| description | No | Algorithm description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does 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 only says 'register,' which suggests a mutating operation, but it does not disclose side effects, whether duplicates are rejected, whether the registration persists, or what happens after registration.
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 short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It front-loads the core action but omits behavioral and contextual details that would make the definition useful.
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?
For a registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the registration workflow, required inputs beyond the obvious, potential error conditions, or how it differs from auto_detect_algorithms and register_implementation.
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 all three parameters adequately. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but it does not compensate or elaborate on parameter relationships.
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 a clear verb ('register') and resource ('algorithm') and adds the purpose 'to benchmark.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_implementation and register_test_case by resource type, though it relies on the tool name for full differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auto_detect_algorithms or register_implementation. The description implies the action but provides no context about prerequisites, intended workflow, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.