MinerU MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a download URL when done, which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens during task processing (e.g., polling frequency, timeout). For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded with two clear sentences: 'Check task progress. Returns download URL when done.' Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (status checking with two parameters) and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and outcome but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover error cases, return formats beyond the URL, or detailed behavioral traits. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, it's adequate but has clear gaps 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (task_id and format) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances. 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 tool's purpose as 'Check task progress' with the specific outcome 'Returns download URL when done.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('task progress'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mineru_batch_status, which might have similar functionality.

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 mentioning 'Task ID from mineru_parse,' suggesting this tool follows mineru_parse. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like mineru_batch_status or mineru_batch, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the task_id parameter.

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