NiiVue MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions BM25 as the search algorithm, which hints at ranking behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a technical detail (BM25) that adds value without verbosity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what the search returns, how results are structured, or error conditions. For a tool with two parameters and complex search behavior, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'query' should contain (e.g., keywords, phrases) or how 'limit' affects results (e.g., max number of docs). This leaves both parameters semantically unclear beyond their types.

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 ('Search') and target resource ('Niivue documentation'), and specifies the search algorithm ('with BM25'), which adds technical specificity. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_niivue_api' or 'list_niivue_docs', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_niivue_api' or 'list_niivue_docs'. The description implies it's for searching documentation, but without explicit context or exclusions, the agent must infer usage based on tool names alone.

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