Invoker MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output ('Produces a deployable dist/'), the content types generated ('markdown docs and inline runnable .ivk request widgets'), and a prerequisite ('Requires the invoker-app to be installed'), enhancing the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and requirements.

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 well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output, and prerequisite without unnecessary details. The first sentence explains what the tool does and what it produces, while the second sentence adds a critical requirement, making every sentence earn its place.

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 (building a documentation site with multiple parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, output, and prerequisites, but does not detail the return values or error handling, which could be useful for an agent. However, with annotations providing safety hints and the schema covering parameters, the description is sufficient for effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (collection_path, output_path, title). The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of the collection folder or the format of the output. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter information.

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 ('Build a static documentation site'), the resource ('from an Invoker collection folder'), and the output ('Produces a deployable dist/ with markdown docs and inline runnable .ivk request widgets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like invoker_list_collection or invoker_send_request by focusing on site generation rather than collection management or request execution.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Build a static documentation site from an Invoker collection folder') and includes a prerequisite ('Requires the invoker-app to be installed'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as invoker_list_collection for viewing collections instead of building sites.

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