UpMath MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it validates equations, checks LaTeX syntax via UpMath, reports render errors, flags issues like unmatched braces, and notes it's slower than scan_document_math. However, it lacks details on error formats, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by specific checks and a comparative guideline. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first defines the tool, the second details validation aspects, and the third provides usage context. It's efficiently structured 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, 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage guidelines effectively. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., error report format), leaving a minor gap in contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('inputFile' as path to markdown file, 'maxEquations' with default and usage note). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format details or equation validation specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 clearly states the specific action ('validate all equations'), resource ('markdown file'), and scope ('check LaTeX syntax via UpMath, report render errors, flag potential issues'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'scan_document_math' by noting it's slower but verifies renderability, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Slower than scan_document_math but verifies renderability.' This directly compares it to a sibling tool, helping the agent choose based on speed vs. thoroughness. No exclusions are stated, but the comparison suffices for strong guidance.

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