Statonic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (human-readable summary plus full JSON) and the read-only nature ('Read'), but lacks details on error handling, file access permissions, or performance considerations. Adequate but with gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with essential information, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter input, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, output format, and usage context, but could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases). Good for a read-only tool with low complexity.

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 the 'path' parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as file format expectations or path validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 verb ('Read') and resource ('Statonic project JSON file'), specifying it returns both a human-readable summary and full JSON. It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_statonic_project' (write operation) and 'analyze_statonic_library' (different resource).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this first to understand the project before making edits,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying alternatives (e.g., edit tools like 'update_segment'). It effectively directs usage in the workflow context.

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