nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only covers basic positional behavior. It doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Insert'), permission requirements, side effects on existing schema, error conditions, or response format. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies position values. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation but lacks crucial context about behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and differentiation from sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing position enum values with brief explanations, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in 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 specific action ('Insert a schema node'), the resource ('at a position relative to a target node'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'insert_new_schema' by specifying adjacency positioning. It uses precise terminology that matches the tool's name and schema.

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 for inserting schema nodes relative to existing ones, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'insert_new_schema' or 'update_ui_schema'. It mentions position values but doesn't explain scenarios or prerequisites for choosing this tool.

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