DROYD MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns projects with agent evaluations including investment scores and thesis points, which adds behavioral context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving gaps 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, scopes, returns, examples) and uses bullet points effectively. Every sentence adds value, though the examples section is somewhat lengthy but necessary for clarity. It could be slightly more concise in the examples while maintaining usefulness.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining scope and providing examples. However, for a tool that returns complex data (projects with evaluations), more detail on output structure or behavioral aspects would improve completeness, especially without annotations to cover safety or operational traits.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of scope options (personal agent, community swarm, both) and providing concrete examples of parameter usage, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum and descriptions. This justifies a score above baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'watchlist projects for the authenticated user', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like droyd_get_positions (positions vs watchlist) and droyd_search_projects (search vs get watchlist), establishing clear 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 clear context about scope options (agent, swarm, combined) with examples, indicating when to use different parameter combinations. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like droyd_filter_projects or droyd_search_projects for similar functionality.

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