kitsune-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It covers multiple modes (set, check, OAuth, logout) but does not detail side effects such as persistent storage or network calls. The examples are helpful but the description could be more explicit about underlying actions.

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 extremely concise, using code examples to convey behavior efficiently. Every line adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the overall purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers key usage scenarios adequately. It could mention error handling or synchronization behavior, but for a credential management tool it's sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description adds rich meaning to both parameters via examples. It clarifies that server_id_or_var can be an env var name or server ID, and value can be a token or 'logout', which is far beyond the bare schema.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: checking or setting credentials. Examples differentiate between env var and OAuth operations, and sibling tools (auto, call, etc.) are unrelated, so it stands out.

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 explicit usage patterns via examples (e.g., auth('GITHUB_TOKEN', 'ghp_...') for saving, auth('server-id') for OAuth). It implies when to use, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, which is acceptable for a dedicated auth tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the workflow (search, pick server, infer args, call) but does not mention potential side effects, error behavior, or whether calls are read-only or destructive. The agent is left guessing about safety and 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus two examples. Every word adds value, no fluff. The examples are well-chosen and demonstrate usage patterns effectively.

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 (automatic server selection, argument inference, calling other tools), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values (though an output schema exists), error handling, and the inference mechanism. Sibling tools like 'search' and 'call' are not explained in 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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description should clarify parameter meanings. It only hints at 'task' and 'server_hint' via examples but does not explain 'tool_name', 'arguments', or 'keys'. The schema lists these but provides no descriptions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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: an auto-routing orchestrator that searches for a server, picks it, infers arguments, and calls. Examples clarify usage with natural language tasks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'call' by automating server selection.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when you don't know which server to use.' It also provides illustrative examples. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'call' for direct invocation.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses routing behavior (warm pooled vs transient transport), session stats recording, and truncation of long responses with continuation note. No contradictions.

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?

Concise at 5 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and behavior, includes clear usage examples with no fluff.

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?

Covers key behaviors: invocation, routing, stats, truncation. Lacks error handling description, but given output schema exists and tool is straightforward, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 50%; description provides usage examples that illustrate tool_name, arguments, and server_id usage but does not explain config parameter. Examples add value but not full semantics.

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?

Clearly states 'Invoke a tool on an MCP server' with specific verb and resource. Provides examples and distinguishes from sibling 'auto' which does search->pick->call in one step.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when: the tool name and target server are known. Avoid when: discovery is needed — auto() does search → pick → call in one step.' Names alternative tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'persistent server' but omits details on side effects, required permissions, or lifecycle, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise with two sentences, but the second sentence is terse and slightly confusing ('alias for release()'). It is efficient but could be clearer.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description lacks completeness. Key behavioral aspects (e.g., return values, error handling) are omitted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'command' and 'name' but does not address 'timeout' or 'inherit_stderr', offering only partial help.

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 starts a persistent server, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not effectively distinguish this tool from siblings like 'reload' or 'auto', leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies a range of commands but does not specify prerequisites or context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavioral trait, that this terminates/kills a connection (a destructive, non-reversible action), which is the most important signal. However, it omits permissions required, behavior when the name does not exist, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the action first and the identifier second. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essential action but leaves gaps around failure modes, permissions, and effects on the connection's state, which is thin for a no-annotation tool.

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 0% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By name' clarifies that the parameter identifies the connection to kill, adding meaning beyond the bare schema, but it does not specify naming conventions or whether the name is case-sensitive or unique.

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 gives a clear verb (kill) and resource (persistent connection), with a scoping clause ('by name'). It is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like connect and status, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as connect or reload, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that a connection must exist first). The only implied usage is inferring from 'persistent connection' that it targets an existing session.

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

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

The description fully discloses the internal steps: release stale process, start fresh code, remount live, and always releases first. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It could add more on error handling or prerequisites.

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?

Two sentences plus a concise example; every sentence adds value. The description is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The description covers purpose, behavior, parameter meaning, and usage context. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. It could mention prerequisites like having an active connection, but overall it is near complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'name' is the alias from connect(). This adds clear meaning, though it could include format or validation constraints.

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 reloads a persistent connection after editing its code, and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it replaces the manual release+connect+shapeshift cycle, making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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?

It explicitly says to use after editing code and replaces the manual cycle, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus other single tools like connect.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ranked list of server_ids with specific fields, records discovered servers in session for status(), and reports per-registry failures inline. This is thorough but could mention pagination or rate limits.

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?

Well-structured with short paragraphs, bulleted examples, and clear sections. Every sentence is informative without superfluous words. The use of code blocks for examples aids readability.

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 complexity (multiple registries, comparison feature, session recording), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral details. Output schema exists, so return values are unnecessary. Slight gap: no mention of error handling beyond inline failures.

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 50% (query and compare have descriptions; registry and limit only have titles). The description adds value by listing possible registry values ('all|official|...') and explaining the compare parameter with an example. Limit is not elaborated but has a default, so overall good compensation.

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 discovers MCP servers across registries and is the entry point to mounting. It explicitly uses the verb 'discover' and distinguishes itself from siblings like shapeshift() and inspect() by noting when to avoid it.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' guidance, including example invocations with different parameters and a note on the 'compare' option. Clearly differentiates from alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains sandbox behavior in detail (best-effort, force, opt-out), the confirm parameter for community sources, and the unmounting process. It does not elaborate on potential side effects like process termination beyond unmounting, but coverage is solid.

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 well-structured with code-like examples and clear sections. It is somewhat lengthy but each line adds value. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no required, 0% schema coverage), the description is highly complete. It covers main functionality, parameter behaviors, and example usages. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description.

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 0%, so the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains the key parameters: server_id (empty unmounts), sandbox (None default, True forces, False opts out), source (auto|local|smithery|official), confirm (for community sources), and tools (via examples). This is comprehensive.

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: 'Mount an MCP server's tools at runtime.' It provides specific verb+resource actions, including mounting, unmounting, and various configurations. The examples distinguish it from sibling tools like reload, search, etc.

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 gives explicit examples of when to use different options (e.g., mounting with specific tools, sandbox modes, unmounting). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate use.

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

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('show') but with no annotations, it does not explicitly disclose behavioral traits like side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but lacks detail.

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?

A single sentence that is informative and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Low complexity with no parameters and existing output schema. The description covers the key details of what state is shown, making it complete for its purpose.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter info. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient.

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 shows Kitsune runtime state, listing specific aspects: providers, current form, connections, token stats. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like auth or call.

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 use for checking runtime state but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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