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. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are immediate or staged, what happens to existing configurations not mentioned, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a configuration update tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core function from examples). Every phrase earns its place by specifying what can be updated.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications. With 4 parameters and complex role configuration context, more guidance is needed for safe and effective use.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing three of the four parameters (strictMode, minComplianceScore, requireAlternation) but doesn't explain sessionId or provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Update' and the resource 'role enforcement configuration', with specific examples of what can be updated (strict mode, minimum compliance score, alternation requirement). It distinguishes from siblings like 'elenchus_configure_optimization' or 'elenchus_set_dynamic_roles' by focusing specifically on role configuration rather than broader optimization or role assignment.

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., needing an active session), when it's appropriate (e.g., during role setup vs. mid-session), or what happens if used incorrectly. With many sibling tools for configuration and management, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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