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 mentions the tool is for 'classic 'page' type pages', which adds some context, but fails to describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the UID is invalid, or the format of the returned data. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a usage constraint. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by separating the constraint into a second sentence for clarity, though it's still concise overall.

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 a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, error handling) and doesn't explain the return value, which is critical for a 'get' operation. The constraint about page types is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uid' fully documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain UID format or examples), so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('JS block UI schema by UID'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page' or 'get_flow_model', which might also retrieve related resources, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is the right choice.

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 includes a usage constraint ('for classic 'page' type pages, not flowPage'), which provides some context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify alternatives (e.g., what tool to use for flowPage) or other prerequisites, leaving the guidance incomplete and only implied rather than explicit.

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