nocobase-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 states the tool attaches an existing block, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects on the parent or block, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies relationships between entities.

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 two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage, with no redundant information. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), output format, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify 'subKey' or 'subType' usage further), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Attach') and resource ('existing flowPage block/model to a parent'), specifying it's for adding an existing block to a container at a specific position. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'move_flow_model' or 'insert_new_schema', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 context ('to add an existing block into a flowPage container at a specific position') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_flow_model' or 'insert_new_schema', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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