Elenchus MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns structured data, has rate limits, or how it handles invalid session IDs. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic purpose.

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 and lists key components without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what the summary includes, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the summary returns (e.g., format, data types), potential errors, or behavioral context, which is inadequate for a tool that likely provides complex mediator data.

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 format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'mediator summary' with specific components like 'dependency graph stats, verification coverage, and intervention history'. It distinguishes from many siblings (e.g., elenchus_get_issues, elenchus_get_context) by focusing on mediator-specific summary data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from elenchus_role_summary or elenchus_get_diff_summary.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active session), exclusions, or compare to siblings like elenchus_role_summary or elenchus_get_context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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