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. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose what that includes (e.g., user ID, email, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., if the user doesn't exist), or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely queries system data.

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 conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more structured by including key details like output format or usage context to improve completeness.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails, potential errors, or how it differs from siblings like 'enumerate_users'. For a tool that likely returns structured user data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' documented as 'Username to look up'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., case sensitivity) or how it relates to the output. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 resource ('detailed information about a specific user account'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'enumerate_users' (which lists users) and 'get_user_privileges' (which focuses on privileges), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description itself.

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 like 'enumerate_users' or 'get_user_privileges'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the user must exist or if authentication is required, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific use cases.

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