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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates the tool generates test suites, it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies files or systems, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. For a tool that likely involves file generation or system interaction, this omission is significant, as the agent lacks critical behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it to highlight key aspects, but overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 generating test suites (which may involve file creation or system changes), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more behavioral and output context. It adequately covers the basic purpose but fails to address critical aspects like what the tool returns, error handling, or dependencies. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, this is a moderate gap, making it just above minimal viability.

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: 'contractName', 'scenarios', and 'testType' with an enum. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing extra description.

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's purpose: 'Generate comprehensive test suites for Clarity contracts including unit tests, integration tests, and security tests.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('test suites for Clarity contracts'), and scope ('unit tests, integration tests, and security tests'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_contract_performance' or 'validate_stacks_address', which might involve testing-related activities, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing contract or project setup, nor does it suggest when to choose this over other testing or analysis tools in the sibling list. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent to infer appropriate scenarios without explicit direction.

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