stackzero-labs/mcp

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, destructiveness, permissions, or side effects. The phrase 'implementation details' is not informative about behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical information about the tool's purpose and output. It is not front-loaded with key details, making it minimally acceptable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. However, it only mentions block names without explaining what data is returned, format, or how to interpret the output. It is incomplete.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies, and the description does not add any misinformation about parameters.

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 'Provides implementation details for address-01-block, address-02-block blocks' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like getBanners or getCarts.

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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without guidance for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., returns data, code, or configuration). 'Implementation details' is ambiguous and insufficient.

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 sentence but contains a repetitive list of 12 block names, which could be condensed. It is not optimally structured for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage. It only lists block names, leaving the tool's purpose and output unclear.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing specific block names, clarifying scope beyond an empty schema.

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 says 'provides implementation details' which is vague; it doesn't clearly state that it retrieves banners. It lists specific banner blocks but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like getUIBlocks.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer without help.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The agent has no insight into what happens during invocation.

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 sentence, but it is not well-structured. It does not front-load a clear action verb or resource. The lack of informative content makes brevity a drawback rather than a virtue.

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 there are no parameters or output schema, the description should define the tool's purpose fully. It fails to explain what 'implementation details' means or what the returned data looks like, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. However, the description adds no value beyond the schema; it could have clarified that no parameters are needed. A score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal semantic support.

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 'Provides implementation details for cart-01-block blocks' is vague and does not clearly state that the tool retrieves cart data. The verb 'provides' is ambiguous, and the term 'cart-01-block' is not explained. Among siblings like 'getProducts', it's unclear how this tool differs.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getProducts' or 'getUIBlocks'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool provides 'implementation details,' which implies a read operation but lacks explicit confirmation of being non-destructive or side-effect-free. No additional behaviors (e.g., caching, latency, permissions) are mentioned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope, earning its place without redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete in identifying the target components. However, it lacks explanation of what 'implementation details' means—e.g., whether it returns code, configuration, or documentation. More context on the output or usage scenarios would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not compensate for schema gaps. The description adds purpose beyond the empty schema, and the context indicates 100% schema description coverage (trivially). Following the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description explains the tool's function.

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 provides implementation details for specific image components (image-viewer-basic, image-viewer-motion, image-carousel-basic), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other entities like addresses or products. However, the phrase 'implementation details' is somewhat vague, leaving the exact nature of the output unspecified.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as getUIComponents or getUIBlocks. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it provides implementation details but does not mention whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or returns data in a specific format. This is insufficient for an agent to assess safety and behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb-object structure. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 has no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the return format, which is important since there is no output schema. The tool's simplicity partially compensates, but the description could be more informative about what 'implementation details' entails.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output focus (implementation details for specific components), which is meaningful beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the returned details.

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 verb 'Provides' and the resource 'implementation details' for specific components ('input-icon, phone-number-input-basic'), distinguishing it from sibling 'get*' tools that likely fetch other data. However, it does not specify what kind of implementation details (e.g., code, configuration), leaving some ambiguity.

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 (e.g., getUIComponents for broader UI data). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits. For a read-like tool, it should at least implicitly state it is non-destructive.

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 sentence listing many block names, making it somewhat repetitive and less concise. The core function is stated upfront, but the list could be summarized.

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?

The description lacks explanation of what 'implementation details' includes, and there is no output schema or annotation to clarify. Without context on return format, the agent cannot fully understand the tool's output.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional meaning is required.

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 name 'getProductCards' and description clearly indicate the tool provides implementation details for a specific set of product card blocks. The exhaustive listing of blocks gives precise scope, but the verb 'provides implementation details' is less direct than a stronger action like 'returns' or 'gets'.

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 its siblings, such as getProducts or getUIBlocks. The description does not mention exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. 'Implementation details' is too vague to convey what the tool does.

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 sentence but lists many component names without explaining their relevance. It is not concise in conveying purpose and lacks structure.

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?

The description provides no information about the output or return value. Given the tool has no input and no output schema, the agent is left completely in the dark about what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. However, it fails to clarify that no input is required, missing an opportunity for clarity.

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 says 'Provides implementation details for...' but does not clearly state that the tool retrieves product information. The mention of component names suggests a different purpose, leaving its actual function ambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., getProductCards, getProductVariants). There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or data limitations. The description only lists block IDs, adding no transparency beyond the name.

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 sentence but includes a verbose list of block names. It could be more concise and front-loaded with the core purpose instead of listing all block IDs.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain the return format or nature of 'implementation details.' It is incomplete for a tool that claims to provide details about variant blocks.

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). However, the description does not add any semantic value about what the output represents, achieving only the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 it 'provides implementation details' for specific blocks, but does not clarify what a 'block' is or what 'implementation details' means. The resource and action are vague, making it unclear what the tool actually retrieves.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings like getProducts, getUIBlocks, or getUIComponents. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to mention if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. It does not clarify the 'implementation details' nature beyond the name.

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?

Very concise single sentence with no redundancy. However, it could benefit from additional structure to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what 'implementation details' means and what format the results take. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's output or side effects.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal value. According to the guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist, as the schema fully documents the input.

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 says it 'Provides implementation details' for various components, but does not specify what kind of details (e.g., code, configuration) or whether it returns rating data. This ambiguity makes it hard for an agent to understand the tool's exact purpose.

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 on when to use this tool vs. siblings like getReviews or getUIComponents. The description does not differentiate between tools that might return similar data or UI elements.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral traits: whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The phrase 'provides implementation details' vaguely indicates data retrieval, but fails to communicate core behaviors.

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 sentence listing block names. It is concise but not structured informatively; it wastes space listing blocks without conveying core functionality.

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 lack of output schema and parameters, the description must provide complete context. It fails to mention the return format, data structure, or any preconditions. The tool appears to be a simple list of block details, but the description is insufficient for reliable agent 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the empty schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema is self-sufficient, but the description could have explained the lack of parameters.

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 it provides implementation details for specific blocks, but it does not clarify what type of details (e.g., JSON, HTML, configuration) or how the output is structured. Among siblings like getAddresses or getBanners, the differentiation is only by block name, not by data type or purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getUIBlocks or getUIComponents. The description implies it is for review blocks, but without context, an AI agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states it lists blocks without disclosing behavior like ordering, pagination, or completeness guarantees, leaving much unstated.

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?

Single, concise sentence front-loading the purpose with no redundant 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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough; it tells the agent what it returns.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage; description adds no param info, but baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description is sufficient given no params exist.

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 verb 'provides' and the resource 'comprehensive list of all stackzero-labs/ui blocks', distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve other specific entities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; given many sibling tools, explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use information is absent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'comprehensive list', implying a read operation returning all components. However, it does not disclose whether pagination, caching, or authentication is involved. The description is straightforward but could be more explicit about side effects and constraints.

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?

Single sentence clearly stating purpose. Front-loaded with action verb. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns. It could mention the format or fields of the output, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since there are none.

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 tool name 'getUIComponents' and description 'Provides a comprehensive list of all stackzero-labs/ui components' clearly specify the verb (get) and resource (UI components from stackzero-labs/ui). The description distinguishes it from siblings like getAddresses, getBanners, etc., by naming the specific component library.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, limitations, or comparison with other list tools. Given multiple similar get* tools, explicit usage context is lacking.

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