nocobase-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like the impact of 'includeAsyncNode.' For a read operation in a complex domain (flow models), more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters (parentId, subKey, includeAsyncNode). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'parent ID and subKey' and the context of 'navigating the flowPage block tree,' but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond the schema. This meets 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a flowPage block/model by its parent ID and subKey.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('flowPage block/model'), and adds context about navigating the block tree. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_flow_model' or 'get_page', which appear related, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 with 'Useful for navigating the flowPage block tree,' suggesting it's for hierarchical navigation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_flow_model' or 'get_page,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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