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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get issues' but doesn't describe what 'issues' entail, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any constraints like rate limits or permissions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior, justifying a score of 2.

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 core purpose ('Get issues') and adds essential context ('from the current session with optional filtering'). There is no wasted text, and it's structured to convey key information quickly, earning a score of 5.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output format. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness is needed for optimal agent use, resulting in a score of 3.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (sessionId and status with enum values). The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'optional filtering' which aligns with the status parameter but doesn't provide additional semantics. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('issues'), specifying the scope as 'from the current session with optional filtering.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'elenchus_get_context' or 'elenchus_get_diff_summary' by focusing on issues, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated, warranting 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 mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, this lack of usage guidance leaves the agent without clear direction, resulting in a score of 2.

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