WCAG MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly through 'Gets' and explains the inclusive/exclusive level behavior, but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The behavioral context is adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains the optional parameter's effect. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every word contributing to understanding.

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 moderate complexity (filtered retrieval), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key parameter behavior, but lacks details on return format (e.g., structure of criteria objects) or error handling, which would be helpful for a tool with no output schema.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the 'include_lower' parameter's effect with an example ('e.g., AA includes A'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('all success criteria for a specific conformance level'), specifying the exact scope of retrieval. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-criterion' (single criterion) and 'list-success-criteria' (unfiltered list) by focusing on level-based filtering.

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 clear context for usage by explaining the optional 'include_lower' parameter behavior, which helps determine when to use this tool for inclusive vs. exclusive level queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'list-success-criteria' or 'get-success-criteria-detail'.

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