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 discloses key behavioral traits: the conditional create/update logic, the 'use' field requirement for component type, and the prerequisite to call 'attach_flow_model' after creation. However, it doesn't mention permissions, error handling, or what happens to existing data during updates, leaving gaps 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core functionality and conditional logic, and the second provides a critical post-action step. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 (a mutation tool with conditional behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main purpose, usage logic, and a key follow-up step, but lacks details on permissions, error cases, or return values, which are important for such an operation.

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 the 'values' parameter and its key fields. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the conditional behavior based on 'uid' and specifying that 'use' indicates component type, but it doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema offers. 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 ('Create or update a flowPage block/model') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the conditional logic based on 'uid' and the need to call 'attach_flow_model' afterward. It explicitly differentiates from tools like 'destroy_flow_model' or 'get_flow_model' by focusing on creation/update 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 clear context for when to use this tool (create vs. update based on 'uid' presence) and explicitly mentions an alternative ('attach_flow_model') for making the model appear on the page. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or compare it to other sibling tools like 'update_flow_js_block' or 'duplicate_flow_model'.

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