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 mentions that roles are 'set' and will be 'used automatically,' but doesn't clarify whether this is a write operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing roles, or potential side effects. For a tool that appears to modify session state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise with just three sentences, each providing essential information without any waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows with specific usage instructions and downstream effects, making it highly efficient.

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 apparent role in setting session data (implied mutation), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects. While it provides good usage context, it doesn't cover what the tool returns, error conditions, or mutation implications, leaving it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining what 'domainResult' or 'verifierRole' contain), 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 action ('Set dynamically generated roles') and the target ('for a session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many siblings, particularly 'elenchus_update_role_config' which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this after completing all 3 steps of elenchus_generate_roles') and mentions the downstream effect ('The roles will be used automatically by getRolePrompt when sessionId is provided'), giving clear context and prerequisites without misleading information.

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