LimeSurvey 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 states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated data (e.g., survey responses), or has side effects. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences are necessary and efficient, with no redundant information. However, the lack of usage or behavioral context slightly undermines completeness.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical aspects like success/error responses, idempotency, or system impacts. The agent lacks enough information to use this tool safely and 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'id' as 'The quota ID', which adds basic semantics beyond the schema's type information. However, it doesn't explain where to find the ID, its format constraints, or validation rules, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'LimeSurvey quota', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_survey' or 'delete_group' by specifying the quota resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_participants' or 'delete_response' beyond the resource name.

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., whether the quota must be inactive), consequences of deletion, or relationships with other tools like 'set_quota_properties' or 'add_quota'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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