OriginUI 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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a lightweight query or resource-intensive, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what format the statistics are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 ('Get comprehensive statistics'). There is zero wasted text, no redundancy, and it directly communicates the tool's function without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 for a tool that presumably returns statistical data. It doesn't hint at what 'comprehensive statistics' includes (e.g., numeric counts, JSON structure, visualizations), leaving the agent guessing about the return format. For a stats-focused tool with no structured output documentation, this is a significant gap.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information. It could be a 5 if it explicitly noted 'no parameters required', but this is minor.

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 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive statistics about the OriginUI component registry', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_components' or 'search_components' by focusing on statistics rather than listing/searching components. However, it doesn't specify what types of statistics (e.g., counts, usage metrics, trends) are included, preventing a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'list_components' (for listing components) and 'get_component_details' (for detailed component info), there's no indication whether this tool should be used for aggregate data, system monitoring, or other specific contexts. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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