Opik MCP 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 states the tool creates a new version but doesn't explain what that entails—whether it's a write operation, requires specific permissions, affects existing prompts, or has side effects like triggering notifications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new version'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 versioning operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, nor does it hint at return values. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand its full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (name, template, commit_message). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'name' relates to the original prompt or what 'commit_message' is used for. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new version of a prompt'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-prompt' (which creates a new prompt rather than a version) and 'update-prompt' (which might modify an existing prompt without versioning). However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'version' (e.g., whether it's a snapshot, revision, or branch), leaving some ambiguity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prompt), compare to siblings like 'update-prompt' or 'create-prompt', or indicate scenarios where versioning is appropriate (e.g., for tracking changes, experimentation, or deployment). Without this, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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