XRootD 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 tool finds files based on modification time, but does not cover critical aspects like whether it returns metadata or content, how results are formatted, potential rate limits, error conditions, or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. This exemplifies good conciseness and structure.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, performance considerations, and how it differs from siblings. While concise, it does not provide enough context to fully understand the tool's operation and limitations, especially given the absence of structured behavioral data.

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% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (path, hours, recursive) with their types and defaults. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the meaning of 'modified' or how the time period is applied. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Find files modified within a time period' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('files'), and specifies the time-based filtering criterion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_files' or 'list_directory_filtered', which may also involve file searching with different criteria, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'search_files' or 'list_directory_filtered', which could serve similar purposes. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose appropriately among available options.

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