jewei-mcp-nacos

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying the dual behavior ('创建新配置或更新已有配置' - creates new or updates existing), which isn't captured in annotations. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond the core operation, but with annotations covering safety and idempotency, this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and return. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating parameter names in description vs. schema), but overall it's efficient and readable.

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 (mutation operation with multiple parameters), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere). The description provides adequate context on purpose and parameters. It could improve by mentioning the sibling tool for better guidance, but it's largely complete for effective use.

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%, but the description compensates by listing all parameters with brief explanations and defaults. However, it doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's implied by parameter names (e.g., 'data_id' as configuration ID). The schema itself has detailed property descriptions, so the description provides basic orientation but minimal extra semantic value.

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 ('发布' - publish) and resource ('Nacos 配置' - Nacos configuration), specifying it creates new configurations or updates existing ones. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'nacos_get_config' which presumably only retrieves configurations.

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 implies usage context through '创建新配置或更新已有配置' (creates new configurations or updates existing ones), suggesting this is for configuration management. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The presence of a sibling tool 'nacos_get_config' isn't leveraged for comparative guidance.

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