XRootD MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the core function and byte range support. It misses critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., missing files), rate limits, output format (text/binary), or file size constraints. The description is minimal 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Read contents of a file') and adds a useful technical note ('supports byte ranges') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and file I/O complexity. It lacks details on authentication, error scenarios, output format, and performance considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly in varied contexts.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning byte range support, which aligns with 'start' and 'end' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already specifies (e.g., format examples or constraints).

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 specific action ('Read contents') and resource ('a file from the XRootD server'), with additional technical detail about byte range support. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_file_exists' (verification) and 'get_file_info' (metadata retrieval) by focusing on content extraction.

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 implies usage for reading file contents, particularly with partial byte ranges, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_file_info' for metadata or 'search_files' for discovery. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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