nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a creation/insertion operation (implying mutation), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. The mention of 'NocoBase's insertNewSchema action' provides some context but not enough operational 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Create and insert' (action), 'new UI schema node' (resource), 'via NocoBase's insertNewSchema action' (mechanism). There's no wasted verbiage.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid schema node, what permissions are required, what the response looks like, or how this differs from similar schema operations. Given the complexity implied by nested objects in the schema and the presence of many sibling tools handling UI schemas, more context is needed.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'schema' documented as 'Schema node to create and insert (JSON)'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reinforcing that it's a 'schema node' without providing additional context about the expected structure, constraints, or examples of valid schema nodes.

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 ('Create and insert') and the resource ('new UI schema node'), and specifies the mechanism ('via NocoBase's insertNewSchema action'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'insert_adjacent_schema' or 'update_ui_schema', which likely handle similar schema operations.

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. With multiple sibling tools dealing with UI schemas (insert_adjacent_schema, update_ui_schema, remove_ui_schema, batch_patch_ui_schema), there's no indication of when this specific 'insert_new_schema' operation is appropriate versus those other operations.

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