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 the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. The mention of ':getProperties' adds some context about the retrieval method, but overall behavioral traits are inadequately described for a tool with no annotations.

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 ('Get the full nested UI schema tree for a node by UID') and adds a clarifying detail about the method. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., the structure of the 'nested UI schema tree'), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool that retrieves hierarchical data, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively, especially without structured support.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'uid' parameter documented as 'UI schema UID'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying that the UID is used to fetch a nested tree. Since the schema already covers the parameter well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding of the parameter's role or usage.

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 ('full nested UI schema tree for a node by UID'), specifying it retrieves a hierarchical structure. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_page_properties' by mentioning the inclusion of all descendants via ':getProperties', though it doesn't explicitly compare to all siblings. This makes the purpose clear but not fully differentiated across all alternatives.

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 mentions using ':getProperties' to include descendants, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'get_page_properties' or 'get_parent_schema'. Without such context, an agent may struggle to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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