UnClick MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the search functionality and purpose but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or pagination behavior. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structural behavioral information.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance with a concrete example. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and usage. However, it doesn't describe what the search results look like, how they're structured, or any limitations of the search functionality, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the structured fields. The description mentions 'keyword or description' which aligns with the query parameter, and the example reinforces the query usage, but it doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Search the UnClick tool marketplace') and resource ('by keyword or description'), distinguishing it from siblings like unclick_browse or unclick_tool_info by focusing on discovery functionality. It provides a concrete example that reinforces the purpose.

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 this tool ('Use this to discover which tools are available for a task') and provides a helpful example. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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