Altium MCP server status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it 'Triggers script bundle sync into workspace/AltiumScript,' and it explains that failed bridge runs write bridge_last_error.txt and live tools append that file to the error field when success is false. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of side effects and error handling.

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 well-organized with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites, How to interpret). It front-loads purpose and usage, and every sentence provides essential information without unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately sized for a diagnostic tool.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description compensates by enumerating all return fields (e.g., altiumExeFound, bridgeLastError, env) and explaining how to interpret diagnostics. It also covers prerequisites, side effects, and error workflows, making it fully complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. The description explicitly says 'Parameters: None,' which is sufficient. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource as 'MCP + Altium bridge setup.' The phrase 'before other tools' establishes its role as a diagnostic first-call function, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like altium_ping or configure_altium_exe.

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?

It explicitly states 'When to use: First call in a session, or after MCP/Altium install or path errors.' This provides clear timing and conditions, and implicitly tells when not to use it. It also points to configure_altium_exe or env for fixing path issues, giving an alternative.

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