Stacks Clarity MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'SIP compliance' and 'security best practices' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this creates new files, overwrites existing ones, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 main purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating compliance from functionality aspects.

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, no output schema, and a generation tool with potential behavioral complexity, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with other tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (contractName, contractType, features). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining SIP compliance implications or feature interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool generates a 'complete Clarity contract' with specific compliance and functionality aspects (SIP compliance, security best practices, comprehensive functionality). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_sip009_template' or 'build_clarity_smart_contract' by emphasizing completeness and compliance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_sip009_template' or 'build_clarity_smart_contract'. The description implies usage for generating compliant contracts but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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