Discourse MCP

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies pagination details (30 posts per page, most recent first), return content (topic title, post date, excerpt, direct links), and clarifies the username format (without @ symbol). No contradictions with annotations; the description enhances understanding beyond structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details (pagination, content, ordering) in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and output content, though no output schema exists. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or rate limit details, but overall it provides sufficient context for effective 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 clear documentation for both parameters (username and page). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, such as implying pagination context and username format, but does not provide additional syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter details effectively.

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 ('Get a paginated list of posts and replies by a specific user') and resource ('posts and replies'), distinguishing it from siblings like discourse_list_categories or discourse_search by focusing on user-specific content. It explicitly mentions the ordering ('most recent first') and content type, avoiding tautology with the name/title.

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 when to use this tool: to retrieve posts and replies for a specific user with pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., discourse_search for broader queries or discourse_read_post for single posts), though the sibling list implies differentiation. This is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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