Hyperfabric 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 'Get a specific sub-interface', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, leaving the agent uncertain about execution outcomes.

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 with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action. While it lacks detail, its brevity is not due to verbosity but under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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 (5 parameters, 3 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'sub-interface' is, how it relates to nodes and fabrics, what data is returned, or potential side effects. For a tool in a domain with many siblings (e.g., network management), more context is needed to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 all 5 parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., fabricId, nodeId, subInterfaceId, candidate, includeMetadata). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. According to the rules, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is 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 'Get a specific sub-interface' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'nodesGetNodeSubInterface' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what a 'sub-interface' is in this context (e.g., network interface component) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'nodesGetNodeSubInterfaces' (plural) or 'nodesUpdateNodeSubInterface'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun structure.

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 'nodesGetNodeSubInterfaces' (for listing multiple sub-interfaces) or 'nodesUpdateNodeSubInterface' (for modifications), nor does it specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual constraints. Usage is implied only through the generic 'get' action, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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