MasterGo Magic MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that users 'need to actively call this tool' and 'must provide an absolute rootPath,' which adds some behavioral context, but it fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, or how the workflow is delivered (e.g., file creation, API response). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 three sentences, but the first sentence ('Users need to actively call this tool to get the component development workflow.') is redundant with the second, and the structure could be more front-loaded with core purpose. It's moderately concise but includes some waste, such as repeating the call-to-action without adding new information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., files, instructions, data), how errors are handled, or the scope of 'component development workflow.' For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 three parameters (fileId, layerId, rootPath) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the need for rootPath but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as how parameters interact or format specifics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'provides a structured workflow for component development following best practices,' which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'component development workflow' entails or what resource it operates on. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Generator' but doesn't clearly differentiate from tools like mcp__getComponentLink or mcp__getDsl in terms of function.

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 includes 'When Generator is mentioned, please actively call this tool,' which provides some context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp__getComponentLink or mcp__getDsl. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in usage instructions.

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