UpMath MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool generates a URL but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what happens with invalid LaTeX. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the UpMath URL for a LaTeX expression') and adds clarifying context ('for embedding in HTML/markdown'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or return values. For a simple tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's minimally viable but could benefit from more context on operational aspects.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('latex' as LaTeX expression, 'format' with enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as LaTeX syntax requirements or format implications, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('UpMath URL'), and the specific purpose ('for a LaTeX expression for embedding in HTML/markdown'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'render_equation' (which might return an image) by focusing on URL generation for embedding.

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 implies usage when needing a URL for embedding LaTeX in web content, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'render_equation' (which might return rendered content directly) or 'render_markdown_with_math' (which handles broader markup). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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