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 describes what the tool returns ('Returns the block's model data including 'use', 'parentId', 'stepParams', etc.') which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading).

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and key constraints. The second sentence describes the return value. There's zero wasted text and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read operation with 2 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides good context about what it retrieves and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the return structure or error handling. The description is complete enough for basic usage but has room for improvement.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'UID' but doesn't provide additional context about format or sourcing. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get'), target resource ('flowPage block/model'), and key identifier ('by UID'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from alternatives by specifying it's for 'flowPage type pages (not classic 'page' type)', which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_page or get_js_block.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for blocks inside flowPage type pages') and when not to use it ('not classic 'page' type'). It also implicitly suggests alternatives by mentioning the specific context, helping the agent choose between this and siblings like get_page or get_flow_model_by_parent.

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