nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation without confirming safety or side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format, leaving behavioral traits unclear for a tool that likely accesses system data.

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 with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and resource. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'parent UI schema' entails, the return format, or potential errors. For a tool in a complex UI schema system with many siblings, 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 fully documents the single 'uid' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the UID belongs to a 'child node', which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 ('parent UI schema of a node'), specifying it retrieves based on a UID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_flow_model' or 'get_page' by focusing on parent-child UI schema relationships, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_flow_model_by_parent'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing node UID, or differentiate from other retrieval tools like 'get_flow_model_by_parent' that might handle parent-related queries differently.

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