Human Design 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 calculates a Human Design chart but doesn't describe what the output includes (e.g., chart components, format), error handling, performance characteristics, or any side effects. For a calculation tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and parameters, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 complexity of calculating a Human Design chart, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the calculation returns (e.g., chart data, interpretations). Without annotations or output details, users lack critical context about the tool's results and limitations, making it inadequate for informed use.

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 mentions the parameters 'дате, времени и месту рождения' (date, time, and place of birth), which aligns with the required parameters in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters, including optional latitude and longitude. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'Рассчитывает карту Human Design по дате, времени и месту рождения' (Calculates a Human Design chart based on date, time, and place of birth). It specifies the verb 'рассчитывает' (calculates) and the resource 'карту Human Design' (Human Design chart), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_human_design_definition', which likely provides definitions rather than calculations.

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 mentions the required inputs but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to the sibling tool 'get_human_design_definition'. Without such context, users must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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