Opik MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses nothing beyond the basic action. It fails to address critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., on associated data), error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is severe.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Delete a project', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it efficiently communicates the core action without 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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for missing behavioral context, usage guidelines, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool safely.

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%, with clear parameter documentation in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'projectId' format or 'workspaceName' usage. However, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameters.

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 'Delete a project' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Delete' and resource 'project', but lacks distinction from sibling tools like 'delete-prompt' or details about what deletion entails. This minimal statement fails to clarify scope or differentiate from alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project existence), exclusions (e.g., irreversible effects), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update-project' or 'list-projects'. The description offers no context for decision-making.

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