XRootD 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. It mentions 'analyze' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or any performance considerations. The description is too brief to offer meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single phrase, with no wasted words. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness. Every word earns its place, but more detail could improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 analyzing ROOT files (which may involve specialized data structures), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' returns (e.g., tree names, branch details, errors) or any dependencies. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'path' clearly described as 'Path to ROOT file'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on path formats, supported file systems, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Analyze ROOT file structure, trees, and branches' states a clear verb ('Analyze') and resource ('ROOT file'), but it's vague about what 'analyze' entails—it doesn't specify if this is for metadata, validation, or content inspection. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_file_exists' or 'read_file' by focusing on analysis rather than existence or raw reading, but lacks specificity on the analysis scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before 'read_file' for understanding file layout, or if it's an alternative to 'get_file_info' for ROOT-specific details. The description implies usage for ROOT files but offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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