Open-E JovianDSS REST API Documentation 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 mentions parsing the homepage to discover documentation, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, affects system state, or details the output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, such as potential side effects or performance characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and method without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

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 complexity (discovery via parsing), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of links, structured data), potential errors, or how it interacts with the cache implied by the 'refresh' parameter. For a tool with these contextual gaps, the description should provide more operational details 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'refresh' documented as 'Force refresh discovery cache'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which applies here.

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 with a specific verb ('discover') and resource ('all available EDSS documentation'), and specifies the method ('by parsing dh.lan homepage'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_edss_documentation' by emphasizing discovery through parsing rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'search_edss_documentation'), keeping it from 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over siblings like 'get_edss_documentation' or 'search_edss_documentation', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is for discovering documentation via homepage parsing, but this lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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