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. It states this is a read operation ('获取' - get/list), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 clearly states what the tool does and what information it returns. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details, but it's still highly concise.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and output fields, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, pagination) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. For a list tool, this is minimally viable but not fully 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter clutter.

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: '获取用户在 Demox 平台上的所有网站列表' (get all websites list for the user on the Demox platform). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get/list) and resource ('网站列表' - websites list), and includes what information is returned (ID, name, URL, creation time). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_website' (which likely gets a single website), so it misses the highest 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_website' (for single website details) or 'delete_website'/'deploy_website' (for other operations), nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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