EKMS 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. While it indicates this is a retrieval operation ('取得' - get), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the graph is returned in, whether it's paginated, or potential performance implications of deeper depth values. The description is too minimal for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. For a retrieval tool with good schema documentation, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the graph output looks like, how relationships are represented, what happens at different depth levels, or practical usage considerations. For a graph visualization tool with multiple configuration parameters, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '特定知識項目' (specific knowledge item) which aligns with the knowledgeId parameter, but provides no additional context about parameter usage, relationships between parameters, or practical examples.

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: '取得特定知識項目的關聯圖譜，顯示與其他知識的關係' (Get the relationship graph of a specific knowledge item, showing relationships with other knowledge). It specifies the verb ('取得' - get/retrieve) and resource ('知識項目的關聯圖譜' - knowledge item relationship graph). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_item' or 'search_knowledge', which prevents a perfect 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_item' (which might retrieve a single item) or 'search_knowledge' (which might search across items), nor does it provide context about when this graph visualization is appropriate versus other retrieval methods.

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