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 but offers minimal information. 'List available production campaigns' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, or what 'available' means operationally. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. Every word contributes to the core purpose. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it's perfectly structured and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is incomplete for a listing tool. The description doesn't explain what constitutes a 'campaign' in this context, what information is returned, or how results are formatted. With sibling tools offering similar listing functionality, more context is needed to understand this tool's specific role.

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 mentions no parameters at all, while the schema documents one parameter (recoPath) with 100% coverage. Since schema_description_coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even without parameter information in the description. The description doesn't add any semantic context about what 'recoPath' means in relation to listing campaigns.

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 ('List') and resource ('available production campaigns'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_datasets' or 'list_directory', but the specificity of 'campaigns' provides reasonable distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 sibling tools like 'list_datasets', 'list_directory', and 'list_directory_filtered', there's no indication of when this specific campaign listing tool is appropriate versus other listing operations. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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