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. It mentions that routes have types and schemaUid can fetch content, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, pagination details). The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps 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 concise with three sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second details route types and schemaUid usage, and the third clarifies scope. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides basic information about what the tool does and some usage hints. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for effective agent use. The context is minimal but not entirely inadequate.

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% for the single parameter 'pageSize', which is documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'desktop routes (pages and menus) in NocoBase v2', specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pages' by mentioning route types and schemaUid usage, though not explicitly contrasting them. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 by mentioning 'Use schemaUid to fetch page content' and 'Works for both classic pages and flowPages', providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pages' or 'get_page', and does not state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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