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 of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the two distinct search modes and their characteristics, listing available content types, categories, and ecosystems, and providing example parameter structures. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a search tool.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections (Search Modes, Content Types, Categories, Ecosystems, Examples) and bullet points. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about how to use the tool effectively. The examples are particularly valuable for showing parameter combinations.

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?

For a search tool with 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining the tool's functionality. It covers the two search modes thoroughly, lists available filters, and provides practical examples. The main gap is the lack of information about what the output looks like (no output schema), but the description compensates well for this through clear usage guidance.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the meaning and purpose of search_mode options (recent vs semantic), listing all possible content_types, categories, and ecosystems, and showing through examples how parameters interact. It provides context that helps understand when to use which parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches the DROYD knowledge base for crypto content, specifying both the action (search) and resource (crypto content in DROYD knowledge base). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like droyd_search_projects by focusing on content rather than projects, and from droyd_chat by being a search tool rather than conversational.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each search mode: 'recent' for browsing latest content by type/category/ecosystem, and 'semantic' for AI-powered natural language queries. It includes three concrete examples showing different use cases, making it clear when to choose each mode and how to structure requests.

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