nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is an update/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as: whether this operation requires specific permissions, what happens if the UID doesn't exist, whether the update is reversible, if there are rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key constraint. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the parenthetical clarification about page types is necessary context. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the mutation nature of the 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update - success/failure responses, error conditions, or what the updated state looks like. For a tool that modifies JavaScript code content, additional context about code validation, execution context, or security considerations would be valuable but is absent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('uid' and 'code') well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides - it mentions the UID parameter but doesn't provide additional context about UID format or validation. It doesn't explain the 'code' parameter at all. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Update'), the target resource ('code content of a JS block UI schema'), and the mechanism ('by UID'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update_flow_js_block' by specifying it's for 'classic page type pages, not flowPage', which is helpful differentiation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what a 'JS block UI schema' is, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being modified.

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 about when to use this tool by specifying it's for 'classic page type pages, not flowPage', which helps differentiate it from 'update_flow_js_block'. It also implies usage by mentioning the UID parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the flowPage distinction, and doesn't provide prerequisites or error conditions.

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