Context Continuation MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Track a message' suggests a logging or recording action, but it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies session state, what happens to tracked messages (e.g., storage, retrieval), or any side effects like rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It front-loads the core action ('track a message') and adds minimal context ('in the current session'). However, it could be more structured by including brief usage notes, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity within its limited scope.

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 complexity of tracking messages in a session, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'track' entails (e.g., does it store, log, or analyze messages?), the expected return values, or how this integrates with sibling tools like 'context_get_status'. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('message' and 'role'), including an enum for 'role'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 the action ('track') and resource ('a message') but lacks specificity about what 'track' means operationally. It mentions 'in the current session' which provides some context, but doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'context_log_decision' or 'context_add_milestone' that might also handle message-related operations. The purpose is understandable but vague.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The phrase 'in the current session' implies it should be used during an active session, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a session must be started), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'context_log_decision' for similar functions. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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