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 describes what the tool retrieves (prompts, guidelines, rules, templates, checklists) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, or how the data is formatted. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 key action ('Get detailed role prompt and guidelines') and lists the included components without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized 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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and content retrieved, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, response format) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a basic foundation.

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 'role' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and description). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it only repeats the role options without providing additional context like when to choose 'verifier' vs 'critic'. With 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 specific action ('Get detailed role prompt and guidelines') and the target resources ('for Verifier or Critic'), including what content is retrieved ('mustDo/mustNotDo rules, output templates, and checklists'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'elenchus_generate_roles' (which likely creates roles) and 'elenchus_role_summary' (which might summarize roles), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 by specifying the roles ('Verifier or Critic'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before applying fixes or during session setup, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is limited to the role parameter without broader context.

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