UI Preset MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent traits, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies the source ('presets directory') and the optional metadata inclusion behavior. This clarifies what 'list' entails beyond basic safety, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs.

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 optional behavior and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action, parameter effect, and return values, though no output schema exists. A minor gap is lack of error handling or pagination details, but it suffices for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'include_metadata' fully documented in the schema. The description repeats this in the Args section but adds minimal extra meaning, such as the return type implication. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all available presets in the presets directory,' with specific scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_preset' (loads one) and 'scaffold_preset' (creates) by focusing on enumeration without modification.

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 viewing presets, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'load_preset' for detailed inspection or 'list_style_categories' for categorization. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving context inferred.

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