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 safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as mentioning 'install hooks for real-time file indexing' for editor_rules, but doesn't detail side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with 'Utility and help' but becomes a dense list of actions without prioritization or grouping. While concise, the list format may overwhelm; structuring (e.g., grouping by query vs. configuration actions) could improve clarity. Every sentence earns its place, but the presentation is suboptimal.

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 (16 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's scope via action listing but lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., 'team_status' requires team plans). With no output schema, more guidance on expected results would be beneficial.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond listing action names, which are already in the enum. It doesn't explain how parameters like 'format' or 'dry_run' interact with actions, leaving the schema to carry the full burden.

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 this is a utility/help tool and enumerates specific actions (tools, auth, version, etc.), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on system/help operations rather than domain-specific functions like 'graph', 'memory', or 'search'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar-sounding siblings like 'context' or 'generate_rules'.

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 implies usage by listing actions, suggesting this tool is for system-level queries and configuration. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., 'generate_rules' vs. 'editor_rules' action, or 'context' for general context). The agent must infer usage from the action list alone.

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