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. It states 'retrieves' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing parameters and returns. There's zero waste, and every sentence serves a clear function, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basics but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important for a retrieval tool with multiple sibling alternatives. 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?

The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter 'folder_id_or_path' and states it's 'The folder id or path', but schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details. The description doesn't clarify what format the path should be, if IDs are numeric or string, or provide examples. It compensates slightly but inadequately for the low schema coverage.

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 the resource 'folder's contained documents', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'lookup_documents_by_path' or 'repository_object_search', which might also retrieve documents in some way. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 'lookup_documents_by_path' and 'repository_object_search' that might retrieve documents, there's no indication of when this specific folder-based retrieval is preferred. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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