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 ('download files') but lacks details on permissions required, file formats, download limits, error handling, or what happens when 'file_id' is None (e.g., if it returns a zip or list). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential data transfer implications.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Args:' section could be slightly more integrated into the flow, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 tool's complexity (file download operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or return values (e.g., file content or error messages), leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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 adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'sid' is the survey ID and 'file_id' is the file ID, clarifying their roles, and notes that if 'file_id' is None, it downloads all files—a crucial semantic detail not in the schema. This compensates well for the low schema 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 verb ('download') and resource ('files from a LimeSurvey survey'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'upload_file' or 'export_responses', which might handle similar file operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'upload_file' or 'export_responses'. It mentions the parameters but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to 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.