nod-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. It discloses the HTTP fetch behavior, URL construction pattern, and return format. However, it doesn't mention error handling, timeout behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'fetches').

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by specific return details. Every element (source URL, localhost exception, return structure) serves a clear purpose with zero redundancy.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good context about what gets fetched and returned. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about error cases or response format specifics to be fully complete.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (domain format examples are already in schema). It mentions the URL construction but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema's documentation.

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 ('fetches'), resource ('business's NOD Protocol manifest'), source URL pattern, and structured return format. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_capability' by focusing on manifest retrieval rather than capability verification.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to get a structured summary of business identity, capabilities, actions, endpoints, and contacts) and mentions the alternative server for localhost domains. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare with the sibling tool 'check_capability'.

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