EVE-NG MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions retrieving a list with 'basic information,' it doesn't specify what that includes (names, IDs, statuses), whether results are paginated, what happens with invalid paths, or any authentication requirements. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides slightly more detail. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information about the path parameter.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'basic information' includes in the returned list, doesn't clarify the path parameter's semantics, and provides no behavioral context about error conditions, permissions, or result formatting. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'path,' the description provides no additional semantic information about what this parameter means, what format it expects, what valid values are, or how it affects the listing. The mention of 'specified path' in the description is too vague to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('list available labs') and resource ('in EVE-NG'), with the first sentence providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_lab_details' or 'get_lab_topology', which prevents 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 like 'get_lab_details' for specific lab information or 'list_nodes' for node-level listings. It mentions retrieving labs 'in the specified path' but doesn't explain when different paths should be used or what the default '/' path represents.

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