nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Update'), specifies the execution environment ('NocoBase sandbox'), provides the critical API pattern ('use ctx.render(htmlString)'), and gives a concrete example. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error handling, or what happens to existing code.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and context, second provides critical implementation guidance with example. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste. The description is appropriately sized for a 2-parameter mutation tool.

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 does reasonably well by explaining the sandbox environment and rendering API. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects. Given the complexity of updating executable code in a sandboxed environment, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds some value by clarifying that 'code' should use 'ctx.render(htmlString)' sandbox API and providing an example, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 'uid' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update the JavaScript code'), target resource ('JSBlockModel inside a flowPage'), and execution context ('NocoBase sandbox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_js_block' by specifying it's for a JSBlockModel within a flowPage context.

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 when needing to modify JavaScript code in a JSBlockModel within a flowPage, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_js_block' (which might be for standalone JS blocks) or 'save_flow_model' (which might save broader flow changes). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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