DependencyMCP 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 states the tool returns 'whether the version exists with package details and timestamp,' which adds useful context about output content. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently cover purpose, usage contexts, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or output structure. With no output schema, more information on return values would be helpful, though the mention of 'package details and timestamp' provides some context.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or examples). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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: 'Check if a specific version exists.' It specifies the resource (version) and verb (check), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_latest_version' by focusing on existence verification rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'check_versions_exist' (plural vs. singular), leaving minor ambiguity.

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 contexts: 'Use for dependency validation, CI/CD checks, or ensuring version compatibility.' This gives practical scenarios for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_package_info' for more details), but the context is sufficient for informed usage.

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