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 the search scope ('by keyword in titles') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like case sensitivity, partial/full matching, pagination, sorting, error handling, or what happens with no results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., list of technique objects with fields), behavioral details, or usage context relative to siblings. For a search tool in a server with many related tools, more guidance is needed to ensure correct agent selection.

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 'query' documented as 'Search query'. The description adds that it searches 'by keyword in titles', which clarifies the target field but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 verb ('searches') and resource ('techniques'), specifying the search scope ('by keyword in titles'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get-technique' (single retrieval) and 'list-techniques' (unfiltered listing), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search-glossary' or 'search-wcag' which have similar search patterns for different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'list-techniques' (for unfiltered listing) or 'get-techniques-for-criterion' (for criterion-specific techniques), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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