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 the tool retrieves privileges but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires admin permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid UUID), rate limits, or the format of returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance, with no wasted information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves access data. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., list of users/groups with permissions), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool with one parameter but no structured output info, more detail is needed to fully guide usage.

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 description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage (fully describing the 'uuid' parameter). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding with extra context like examples or edge cases.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('user and group access privileges for a specific shared folder'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_privileges' or 'list_shared_folders', which would require more specific language about scope or output format.

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 retrieving privileges of a specific shared folder, and the input schema references 'list_shared_folders' as a way to find UUIDs, providing some contextual guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'get_user_privileges'), or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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