Demox MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it '获取详细信息' (gets detailed information), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: '获取指定网站的详细信息，包括文件列表、部署历史等'. It efficiently states the purpose and key details returned. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from returned data for clarity.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '详细信息' (detailed information) includes beyond a partial list (file list, deployment history), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like response format or error handling. For a tool with no structured support, the description should do more to compensate.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. The schema has 100% coverage with one parameter ('websiteId'), fully described as '要查询的网站 ID' (the website ID to query). The description implies the parameter is used to specify a website but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: '获取指定网站的详细信息，包括文件列表、部署历史等' (Get detailed information about a specified website, including file list, deployment history, etc.). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('网站' - website), and lists specific details returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_websites' (which likely lists multiple websites vs. getting details for one).

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_websites' (for listing websites) or 'delete_website'/'deploy_website' (for other operations), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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