CoderSwap 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 the tool's actions (e.g., 'web crawling, chunking, embedding, and optional DSL generation') but doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, rate limits, whether it's a long-running job (implied by sibling coderswap_get_job_status), or what happens on submission. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Submit research summary and URLs') and lists the processing steps without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, 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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, making it adequate but with clear gaps that hinder full understanding.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'research summary and URLs' and 'optional DSL generation,' which loosely maps to some parameters (research_summary, urls, generate_dsl) but doesn't explain the purpose or usage of project_id, intent, or depth. This partial coverage fails to fully clarify the semantics, especially for key required parameters like project_id.

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 specific verbs ('submit research summary and URLs') and resources ('for web crawling, chunking, embedding, and optional DSL generation'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like coderswap_search or coderswap_validate_search, which might also involve research or URL processing, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as coderswap_search or coderswap_validate_search, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing project. It implies usage for research ingestion but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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