KB-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 'Get knowledge base statistics,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get knowledge base statistics') and doesn't include unnecessary details or redundancy. This efficiency makes it easy for an agent to parse and understand the tool's intent 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned (e.g., document count, storage size, last updated), the data format, or any behavioral traits like performance or access requirements. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion about inputs.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('knowledge base statistics'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_documents' or 'query_knowledge' by focusing on aggregated metrics rather than document operations. However, it doesn't specify what types of statistics are included (e.g., counts, sizes, usage metrics), which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention whether this should be used for monitoring, reporting, or debugging, nor does it differentiate it from siblings like 'list_documents' (which might provide document counts) or 'query_knowledge' (which might involve content analysis). Without any context about usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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