Token-Efficient 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions efficiency, token savings, and pagination for large files, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or what happens with invalid inputs, leaving gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 key functionality and includes a specific efficiency tip in just two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information without waste, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers purpose and some usage guidelines but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which would help an agent use it more effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool uses filters, groupby, and pagination, but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high 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 tool processes CSV files with specific operations (filters, groupby aggregation, pagination), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_process_csv' or 'process_logs', which might handle similar file processing tasks.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (efficient processing with specific features) and includes a specific guideline for large files (>10K rows) to use offset for token savings. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to choose 'batch_process_csv' instead.

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