agency-mcp-server

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool pulls from git (implying version control integration) and rebuilds a search index (a potentially resource-intensive operation). Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, which aligns with the described maintenance task, and the description complements this with operational details.

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 actions ('Pull latest agent templates' and 'rebuild the search index') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and conveys essential information succinctly.

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 has no parameters, annotations provide safety and idempotency hints, and no output schema exists, the description is adequate but lacks details on outcomes (e.g., what happens after rebuilding, error handling). For a maintenance tool with potential side effects, more context on results or dependencies would improve completeness.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the input structure. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it effectively explains the tool's purpose without redundancy, earning a baseline score for clarity in a parameterless context.

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 action ('Pull latest agent templates from git' and 'rebuild the search index') and the resource ('agent templates' and 'search index'). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like agency_browse, agency_search, or agency_status, which appear to be querying tools rather than maintenance operations.

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 when updates to agent templates or the search index are needed, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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