Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a document (implying mutation), mentions default behaviors (e.g., classIdentifier defaults to 'Document', id generates a new GUID), and describes success/failure returns. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or whether changes are reversible, which are important for a creation tool.

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 front-loaded with prerequisites and purpose, but includes verbose parameter documentation that repeats information better suited for the schema. Some sentences (e.g., detailed param explanations) could be trimmed or moved to schema descriptions for better conciseness, though the core content is 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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers prerequisites, purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. The output schema reduces the need to detail return formats, but more behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, permissions) would enhance completeness for a creation tool.

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. It provides semantic explanations for all 6 parameters beyond their names, such as defaults (e.g., 'If not provided, defaults to "Document"'), constraints (e.g., 'This always starts with "/"'), and usage notes (e.g., 'CheckinMinorVersion should always be included'). This adds significant value over the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Creates a document in the content repository with specified properties.' This is a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('document in the content repository'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_folder' or 'update_document_properties' beyond the basic action.

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 explicit prerequisites: 'To use this tool, you MUST call two other tools first in a specific sequence: 1. determine_class tool to get the class_identifier. 2. get_class_property_descriptions to get a list of valid properties.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and references specific alternative tools for preparation.

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