Android Source Explorer 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 'Requires LSP', adding some context about dependencies, but fails to describe key traits like whether it's read-only, potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with code analysis.

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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and a key prerequisite. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it may be overly brief for completeness.

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 (3 required parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and a prerequisite but misses details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and how it differs from siblings. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall, it's minimally adequate with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no semantic details about the parameters (class_name, line, character), such as their roles in locating the symbol or format expectations. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'references to a symbol', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'at a specific position' and 'Requires LSP', which hints at context, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'search_classes' or 'lookup_method'.

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 minimal guidance with 'Requires LSP', implying a prerequisite, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'search_in_source'), or exclusions. It lacks context on when this tool is preferred over other reference or search-related siblings.

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