Visum Thinker 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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it lists files, shows specific metadata (filename, size, full path), and operates on Global Layout files in the project directory. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, error conditions, or file format validation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned (filename, size, full path) and the workflow purpose. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return format structure, though the description does specify the key data points.

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 already fully documents the single 'projectId' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about this parameter beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('List all Global Layout files'), resource ('.lay' files in project directory), and output details (filename, size, full path). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'project_load_global_layout' by stating it should be used BEFORE loading a layout to show available options.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('ALWAYS use this before loading a layout to show available options to the user') and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'project_load_global_layout' tool. It clearly establishes the workflow sequence.

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