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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' documents, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it retrieves all NFRs, a subset, or if there are limitations like pagination or file format constraints. It also doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of files, document contents) or error conditions, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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: 'Get Non-Functional Requirement Documents for this project.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function. No structural issues or verbosity detract from its clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns document data. It doesn't explain what 'gets' entails (e.g., file paths, content, metadata), how NFRs are identified, or potential outputs. For a document retrieval tool with no structured output information, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage, fully documenting the single 'cwd' parameter with its purpose and type. Since the description doesn't elaborate on parameters, it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't compensate with additional context like examples or edge cases.

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: 'Get Non-Functional Requirement Documents for this project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Non-Functional Requirement Documents'), and distinguishes it from siblings like get-bps, get-brds, and get-prds that handle different document types. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's for the current project or how it determines the project context beyond the cwd parameter.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a project path set), exclusions (e.g., not for functional requirements), or compare it to siblings like get-bps or get-uirs. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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