Elenchus 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 the tool 'Get[s] current verification context', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or affects session state. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient detail.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get current verification context') and lists key components. There's no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity implied by the tool name and sibling tools (e.g., involving verification sessions), and with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the context entails (e.g., format, scope), how it integrates with other tools, or behavioral aspects, leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sessionId' documented as 'Session ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the session's role or format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get' and the resource 'current verification context', specifying it includes 'files, issues summary, and session state'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'elenchus_get_issues' or 'elenchus_get_cache_stats' by focusing on a broader context rather than specific components. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4.

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 prerequisites (e.g., after starting a session), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'elenchus_get_issues' for detailed issues. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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