ContextStream MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering the core behavioral traits. The description adds context about the 10 specific analysis actions available, which provides operational context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe performance characteristics, data freshness, or any limitations of the graph analysis.

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 run-on sentence listing 10 actions without proper punctuation or structure. It's not front-loaded with the most important information, and the comma-separated list format makes it difficult to parse. While brief, it lacks the clarity that proper sentence structure would provide.

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?

For a complex tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimal. It identifies the available actions but doesn't explain what each action returns, how results are formatted, or any prerequisites for using the tool. The annotations provide safety information, but the description should do more to explain the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description lists the 10 action values but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides about when each parameter is required or how they interact. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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 states 'Code graph analysis' which provides a general purpose, and lists 10 specific actions, giving some specificity. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'search' or 'context' that might also analyze code relationships. The description is more of a feature list than a clear statement of what the tool fundamentally does.

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. With siblings like 'search', 'context', and 'memory' that might overlap with code analysis functions, there's no indication of when graph analysis is the appropriate choice versus those other tools. The action list implies various use cases but doesn't provide selection criteria.

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