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 discloses that this is a read operation (implied by 'List'), specifies the return format with an example, and mentions it has no parameters. However, it doesn't cover potential behavioral aspects like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's efficiently structured in three concise sentences.

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 (0 parameters, read-only operation), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and return values, and with an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return structure. This adequately covers all necessary aspects for this simple 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly states there are no inputs ('This tool should be called first...' implies no parameters), adding clarity beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 specific action ('List all available root class types') and resource ('in the repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_all_classes' by focusing on root classes only. It provides a concrete example of return values, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('This tool should be called first to get a list of valid root class names before using the list_all_classes tool'), providing clear guidance on sequencing and distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_all_classes' tool.

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