nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a collection, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the collection doesn't exist (error behavior), or what format the return data takes. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'get' entails (e.g., returns metadata, full content, or just existence), error conditions, or authentication requirements. Given the context of multiple sibling tools and the lack of structured behavioral information, more detail would be helpful.

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%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'Collection name' in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reinforcing that retrieval is 'by name.' Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a specific collection by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_collections' by specifying retrieval of a single collection rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other get_* tools like 'get_page' or 'get_flow_model' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'list_collections' for browsing all collections, nor does it explain prerequisites like needing to know the exact collection name. There's no context about when this tool is appropriate versus other retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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