Statonic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a creation tool (implies mutation), auto-selects clips for unfilled slots, and integrates with a workflow. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a numbered workflow that efficiently guides usage. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or fluff. The structure is clear and actionable.

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 complexity (creation with auto-selection and overrides), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, workflow, and parameter intent. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. It compensates well with workflow context but has minor gaps.

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 all parameters (template_id, project_name, slots). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'slot overrides' and 'auto-selects clips by category for unfilled slots,' which aligns with the schema's description for 'slots.' No additional syntax or format details are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Create a Statonic project from a template' with the specific behavior 'Auto-selects clips by category for unfilled slots.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_templates' (which lists templates) and 'write_statonic_project' (which writes projects without template context). The verb 'create' and resource 'Statonic project' are specific and unambiguous.

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 workflow guidance: '1. Call list_templates to see available templates 2. Get clips with get_clips_by_category to know what's available 3. Call use_template with slot overrides 4. Verify with render_preview.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (step 3) versus alternatives like 'list_templates' (step 1) and 'render_preview' (step 4), with prerequisites and sequencing.

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