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 states the tool records feedback for optimization, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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: '記錄知識使用反饋，用於持續優化知識品質'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it highly concise 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 complexity (mutation with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. With 100% schema coverage, it's complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for robust agent guidance without additional context.

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 6 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'followUpQuestions' indicates incomplete knowledge) or usage examples. 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 tool's purpose: '記錄知識使用反饋，用於持續優化知識品質' (Record knowledge usage feedback for continuous optimization of knowledge quality). It specifies the action (record feedback) and the resource (knowledge usage), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'recommend_knowledge' or 'search_knowledge' in terms of when to use each.

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., after using knowledge in a session), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_item' for retrieval. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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