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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation across files but doesn't specify what 'event statistics' entail, how results are formatted, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations like handling large datasets. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that processes multiple files.

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's 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 aggregating statistics across multiple files, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation in this context.

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, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Path to dataset directory'. The description adds minimal value by implying the dataset contains ROOT files, but doesn't clarify path format, expected structure, or error handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Aggregate event statistics') and target resource ('across all ROOT files in a dataset'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_event_statistics' or 'get_statistics', which appear similar, so it doesn't fully achieve 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_event_statistics' and 'get_statistics' that might overlap, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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