Specif-ai MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., list, structured data), or any rate limits. It only states what it gets, not how it behaves or what constraints exist.

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 sentence that efficiently states the core function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'Business Process Documents' entail to improve clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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 single parameter with good schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the documents are returned in, how many might be returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that presumably returns data, the lack of output information is a significant gap.

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 the single parameter 'cwd' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 states the tool 'Get Business Process Documents for this project' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what format the documents are returned in, what 'Business Process Documents' specifically refer to, or how this differs from sibling tools like get-brds, get-nfrs, etc. The purpose is understandable but vague regarding scope and differentiation.

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 like get-brds or get-nfrs. It mentions 'for this project' which implies a project context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools. There's minimal contextual guidance beyond the basic operation.

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