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. It mentions retrieving '完整內容' (complete content) and including metadata and related knowledge, which gives some context about what data is returned. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though '取得' implies retrieval, not mutation). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 in Chinese that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('取得' - retrieve) and resource ('知識項目' - knowledge item), making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details like ID-based retrieval and included content.

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 complexity (simple retrieval with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, performance) and doesn't detail output values. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return structure, but it only mentions content types, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'includeRelations') fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain UUID format or what '關聯知識' entails). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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: '根據 ID 取得特定知識項目的完整內容，包含所有元資料和關聯知識' (Retrieve the complete content of a specific knowledge item by ID, including all metadata and related knowledge). It specifies the verb ('取得' - retrieve) and resource ('知識項目' - knowledge item) with scope ('完整內容' - complete content). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_graph' or 'search_knowledge', which prevents a score of 5.

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_graph' (which might retrieve graph-structured knowledge) or 'search_knowledge' (which might search without a specific ID), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the description but not explicitly stated.

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