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 'extract' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 extracting metadata from a specialized format (ROOT file) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what metadata is extracted, the return format, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 a clear description for the 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as specifying the expected format of the path or constraints, but it doesn't need to compensate for low 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 'extract' and the resource 'metadata from podio_metadata tree in ROOT file', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'get_file_info', which might also handle ROOT files, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 specify if this is for metadata extraction only, as opposed to 'analyze_root_file' or 'read_file', leaving the agent without context for tool selection among the many file-related siblings.

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