mcp-openmediavault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires authentication, what the output format might be, if there are rate limits, or if it triggers any system actions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or structural issues.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of updates, status), whether it performs any actions beyond checking, or any behavioral constraints. For even a simple tool, users need to know what to expect from the output, which is missing here.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for this case. A baseline score of 4 is assigned since no parameter information is needed, and the description doesn't attempt to describe nonexistent parameters.

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 ('Check for') and resource ('available software updates in OpenMediaVault'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on software updates rather than system information, settings, or user/group management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential update-related siblings (none exist in the provided list), keeping it from 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 (e.g., system access), timing considerations (e.g., frequency of checks), or what to do with the results. While the context implies it's for monitoring updates in OpenMediaVault, there's no explicit usage context or exclusion criteria provided.

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