nocobase-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool saves an existing node as a template, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if the original node is altered, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a mutation tool.

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 ('save as template') and resource ('UI schema node'). It wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the purpose clearly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and involves mutation (saving as a template), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively. For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no structured support, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('uid' and 'values') documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying 'uid' identifies the node and 'values' contains metadata. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with extra details like format examples or constraints.

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 ('save as') and target resource ('existing UI schema node'), specifying it becomes a 'reusable block template'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_ui_schema' or 'insert_new_schema' by focusing on template creation rather than direct modification or insertion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'duplicate_flow_model' or 'save_flow_model', which might involve similar reuse concepts.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing UI schema node), exclusions (e.g., not for non-UI schema nodes), or compare to sibling tools like 'duplicate_flow_model' or 'save_flow_model' that might handle similar reuse operations. Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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