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. 'Update a project' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. It lacks critical context for a write operation.

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, 'Update a project', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 as a mutation with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 parameters (projectId, name, description, workspaceName). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interdependencies or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update a project' states the verb and resource but is vague about what aspects can be updated. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-project' and 'delete-project' by specifying 'update', but doesn't clarify scope compared to 'update-prompt' or differentiate from partial updates vs full replacements.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get-project-by-id' for read operations or 'list-projects' for discovery.

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