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 useful context about admin-only actions and team-plan restrictions, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'associate' and 'bootstrap' actually do behaviorally beyond their names. 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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates actions with brief clarifications. Every phrase adds value, though the parenthetical explanations could be slightly more polished. It avoids redundancy and stays focused on essential information.

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 (17 parameters, 6 actions) and rich annotations, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and action-specific constraints. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values or error behaviors, and the multi-action nature means some behavioral details (like what 'bootstrap' initializes) are omitted, leaving minor gaps.

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 schema fully documents all 17 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain which parameters correspond to which actions). The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter documentation 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 the tool's purpose as 'Workspace management' and enumerates six specific actions (list, get, associate, bootstrap, team_members, index_settings), providing a comprehensive verb+resource breakdown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'project' or 'context' by focusing specifically on workspace operations.

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 clear context for when to use specific actions (e.g., 'team_members (list members with access - team plans only)', 'index_settings (get/update multi-machine sync settings - admin only)'), offering implicit guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project' or provide explicit exclusions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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