Android Source Explorer MCP Server

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 states the action ('List available versions') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format entails. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose key traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loads the purpose with an example. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete for its basic function. However, without annotations and with minimal parameter guidance, it lacks depth for safe and effective use, making it adequate but 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying the parameter as an 'AndroidX artifact' with an example, but doesn't explain the artifact format, constraints, or if it's required. With 1 parameter and low coverage, this provides only basic context, insufficient for full understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('available versions for an AndroidX artifact'), with a specific example provided ('androidx.compose.runtime:runtime'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lookup_class' or 'search_classes' that might also involve artifact information, though the focus on versions is distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for AndroidX artifacts but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'check_integrity' or 'find_references' that might relate to artifacts. This leaves the agent without 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.