UI Preset MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds valuable context by specifying what data is returned (active preset ID, load time, override status) and clarifying the scope ('current session state'). It does not contradict annotations, as 'Returns' aligns with read-only behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return values for clarity. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, rich annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could briefly mention idempotency or typical use cases for better 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on return values instead, adding semantic meaning to the output fields (e.g., explaining what 'activePresetId' and 'hasOverrides' represent).

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 with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current session state'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on session state retrieval rather than preset management (list_presets, load_preset) or token operations (apply_token_overrides, generate_tokens).

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 implies usage for checking session state details like active preset and overrides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_presets for preset listings or apply_token_overrides for override management). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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