mcp-openmediavault

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. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not specify if it requires permissions, returns structured data, has side effects, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral details is a significant gap, though not contradictory.

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 and includes helpful examples without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately 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 the tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate by stating what settings are retrieved. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral context, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly, especially in a server with many sibling tools.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the types of settings retrieved (e.g., 'scheduled shutdown, wake-on-LAN'), which clarifies the tool's scope beyond just the name, earning a score above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get' and the resource 'power management settings', with examples like 'scheduled shutdown, wake-on-LAN, etc.' that specify what settings are included. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_system_info' or 'get_system_stats', which might also relate to system configuration, leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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, such as whether it's for retrieving specific power settings as opposed to general system information from siblings like 'get_system_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts, making usage unclear in a server with many similar 'get' tools.

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