CommonTrace MCP Server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable domain context ('CommonTrace knowledge base') and hints at the ID format ('UUID'), but does not disclose error behaviors (e.g., trace not found) or pagination since it has an output schema.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific trace...') and uses a clean docstring-style Args section for the single parameter. No sentences are wasted, though the structure is slightly more verbose than inline prose.

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 this is a simple single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. It names the domain system (CommonTrace) and explains the parameter, covering the essential gaps without needing to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full semantic weight. The Args section successfully compensates by documenting that trace_id is a 'UUID' representing the specific trace to retrieve, adding critical type and semantic information absent from the JSON schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('trace'), and specifies retrieval by ID from the 'CommonTrace knowledge base.' While it implies distinction from siblings like 'search_traces' (by emphasizing 'by ID'), it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them, warranting a 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'by ID' provides implicit usage guidance (use when you have the specific UUID), but the description lacks explicit 'when to use' rules or named alternatives like 'search_traces' for discovery scenarios. Guidance is present but must be inferred.

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