WCAG MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Gets full details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, what format the details are returned in, error handling for invalid ref_ids, or if there are rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Gets full details for a specific WCAG guideline') and adds essential context ('including all its success criteria'). There is zero waste, 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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It clearly states the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., return format, error handling). Without annotations or output schema, more detail would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 parameter 'ref_id' clearly documented as 'Guideline reference number (e.g., "1.1", "2.4", "4.1")'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 specific action ('Gets full details') and resource ('for a specific WCAG guideline including all its success criteria'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-guidelines' (which lists multiple) and 'get-criterion' (which focuses on individual success criteria rather than entire guidelines).

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 by specifying 'for a specific WCAG guideline,' suggesting it should be used when detailed information about a particular guideline is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'list-guidelines' for overviews or 'get-criterion' for individual criteria details.

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