UK Legal Research MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the return format (JSON), differentiating between static resources (with 'uri') and templates (with 'uri_template' and placeholders). This clarifies the output structure and types, which the annotation alone does not cover, though it doesn't mention aspects like pagination or rate limits.

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 and follows with essential details about the return format in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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, readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and the structure of the return data, which complements the structured fields without needing to detail parameters or safety aspects already covered elsewhere.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on output semantics, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 resource ('all available resources and resource templates'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'read_resource' by indicating it returns metadata for all resources rather than reading a specific resource's content.

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 by mentioning what the tool returns (JSON with metadata for resources/templates), which suggests it's for discovery purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_resource' or other sibling tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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