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. The description states it lists customer names and mentions filtering use, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no customers exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 appropriately concise with two clear parts: the core functionality and the usage context. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the two ideas more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient 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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and provides some usage context. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally disclose more about behavioral aspects (like whether it's safe/read-only) and what the return format looks like. The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for more completeness given the lack of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'includeStats' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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: '列出知識庫中所有客戶名稱' (list all customer names in the knowledge base). It specifies the verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('客戶名稱' - customer names). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_knowledge' or 'get_knowledge_item', which might also involve customers. The second part '用於過濾特定客戶的知識' (for filtering knowledge of specific customers) adds context but doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 implies usage context: it's for listing customer names to filter knowledge. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_knowledge' or 'list_knowledge_types'. There's no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred. The implied context is helpful but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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