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 but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes (e.g., list of files, document content), potential errors, or any side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no redundant or verbose language. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details like output format or usage context.

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. It doesn't explain what 'get' returns (e.g., file paths, document content, metadata), error conditions, or how it interacts with the inferred project path. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the expected behavior and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'cwd' fully documented in the schema as an absolute path for auto-inferring the project path. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the 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 states the tool retrieves Product Requirement Documents for a project, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'get' entails (list, fetch content, metadata) or distinguish this from sibling tools like get-brds or get-uirs that likely retrieve similar document types. The description is somewhat vague about the exact nature of the retrieval operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project path), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like get-bps or get-nfrs. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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