Opik MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., errors), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format, leaving significant gaps 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the core functionality.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., prompt content, metadata), error handling, or how it fits into the broader context of prompt management, failing to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'promptId' parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately without extra detail from the description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a single prompt by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-project-by-id' or 'list-prompts', which would require mentioning it retrieves individual prompt details rather than projects or lists.

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 such as 'list-prompts' for browsing or 'get-project-by-id' for related resources. It lacks context about prerequisites like needing a valid prompt ID or exclusions for non-existent IDs, leaving usage unclear.

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