UnClick 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 adds some context: it describes the tool as for 'standing rules' that are 'ALWAYS loaded at session start,' implying persistence and automatic loading behavior. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), error handling, or response format, which are important for a mutation tool with no output schema. This makes it adequate but with 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's concise and well-structured, with no wasted 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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, and it doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations. With no output schema, more context on what happens after invocation would be helpful, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 all four parameters (category, key, value, priority) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema; it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify usage beyond the schema's details. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't add extra value.

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: 'Add or update a standing rule in UnClick Memory (Layer 1).' It specifies the verb ('add or update'), resource ('standing rule'), and system context ('UnClick Memory, Layer 1'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'add_fact' or 'write_session_summary,' which might also involve memory operations, so it falls short of 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 clear usage context: 'Business context is ALWAYS loaded at session start. Use for standing rules, client info, and preferences that are always relevant.' This gives guidance on when to use the tool (for persistent, session-start data) and what types of data it handles. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as how it differs from 'add_fact' or 'search_memory,' preventing a score of 5.

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