Group a pasted keyword list (newline or comma separated) into topical clusters with a suggested pillar keyword per cluster. Deterministic; no search volumes.
Group a pasted keyword list (newline/comma separated) into topical clusters with a suggested pillar keyword per cluster. Deterministic; no search volumes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Keywords, one per line or comma separated | |
| min_shared_terms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: the operation is deterministic and returns no search-volume data. However it says nothing about side effects, size/rate limits, or the shape of the returned cluster structure, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two tight sentences: the core input/output contract is front-loaded, and the caveat clause follows. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 stateless transform with no output schema and no annotations, the description partially covers the contract (input format, output concept, determinism) but omits the tuning parameter's semantics, output structure, and any size limits. Adequate but with clear holes.
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 coverage is only 50%: 'keywords' is documented in both places (the description merely restates the newline/comma format), while 'min_shared_terms' is undocumented in the schema and completely unexplained in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, so the second parameter's meaning must be guessed.
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 names a specific verb+resource ('Group a pasted keyword list ... into topical clusters') and even specifies the output artifact ('a suggested pillar keyword per cluster'). It does not reference any sibling tool to differentiate itself, but the siblings (search intent, cannibalization, title/meta, brief outline) are far enough apart that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Usage is implied by the input description (pasted keyword list) rather than explicitly stated, and no alternative tool is named. 'Deterministic; no search volumes' faintly signals a when-not (not for data-enriched analysis), but the agent gets no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.