GraphQL MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states it's a 'GraphQL continent query', which doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 phrase 'GraphQL continent query', which is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loaded information and doesn't earn its place by adding value; it's too brief to be helpful, failing to convey purpose or usage effectively.

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 (a query with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., continent details), how to interpret the 'code' parameter, or behavioral aspects. For a tool with minimal structured data, more descriptive context is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'code' documented as 'code parameter (ID)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what the code represents (e.g., continent code like 'AF' for Africa) or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 'GraphQL continent query' restates the tool name 'continent' and the generic concept of a query, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what the query actually does (e.g., retrieve continent details by code), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'continents' (plural) which might list all continents. The purpose is vague beyond being a GraphQL operation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'continent' (singular) versus 'continents' (plural), or how it relates to other sibling tools like 'countries' or 'languages'. There's no context or exclusions stated, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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