Core Content Services MCP Server

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 'Retrieves' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's cached or real-time, or any error conditions. The return type is mentioned but without details on format or potential null cases. For a tool with no annotations, 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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter and return details in a structured format. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter documentation could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description provides basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return values, so that's not needed. However, for a retrieval tool in a context with many sibling tools, more guidance would improve completeness. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds the parameter 'class_symbolic_name' and explains it as 'The symbolic name of the class to retrieve properties for', which gives basic semantics. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'symbolic name' entails (e.g., format, examples, or how it differs from other identifiers), leaving some ambiguity. With 1 parameter and partial coverage, this meets the baseline.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('properties of a class'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_class_specific_properties_name' or 'get_searchable_property_descriptions', which appear to have overlapping functionality with properties. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.

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. With siblings like 'get_class_specific_properties_name' and 'get_searchable_property_descriptions' that might retrieve similar property data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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