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 states the tool lists all UI schemas and returns raw schema nodes, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a database or API.

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 action ('List all UI schemas in NocoBase') and adds a clarifying note about the return type. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of listing UI schemas in a system like NocoBase, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, pagination) and doesn't explain the return values beyond 'raw schema nodes,' leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on output semantics. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't introduce unnecessary details.

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 ('UI schemas in NocoBase'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from potential alternatives by noting it returns 'raw schema nodes, not page-level navigation,' though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'get_page' or 'list_desktop_routes.'

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 what it returns ('raw schema nodes, not page-level navigation'), which hints at a distinction, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools like 'get_page' or 'list_desktop_routes.'

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