Elenchus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned summary (e.g., structured data vs. text). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 role enforcement summary') and lists key components without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, 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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving a multi-faceted summary), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It outlines what data is included but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or return format. With 100% schema coverage for the single parameter, it meets a basic threshold but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured 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 adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a session entails or how it relates to the role summary. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's no extra value from the description.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('role enforcement summary'), detailing what information it retrieves (compliance history, average scores, violations, current expected role). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'elenchus_get_role_prompt' or 'elenchus_get_issues', which might also retrieve role-related data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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., requiring an active session), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'elenchus_get_role_prompt' or 'elenchus_get_issues', which could lead to confusion about tool selection in this context-rich server.

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