frappe-api-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions token authentication but doesn't disclose rate limits, error handling, response formats, or side effects (e.g., that DELETE methods are destructive). For a tool that can perform any REST operation, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or the scope of 'any Frappe REST API endpoint'. For a flexible, potentially destructive tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the path is under '/api'. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, so it meets the baseline but doesn't compensate for the 20% coverage gap.

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: 'Call any Frappe REST API endpoint via /api using configured token authentication.' It specifies the verb ('Call'), resource ('Frappe REST API endpoint'), and authentication method. However, without sibling tools, it cannot distinguish from alternatives, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate. This is a significant gap for a general-purpose API tool.

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