Knowledge Assistant 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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the read operation but lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if the note doesn't exist), or output format (e.g., plain text, structured data). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and efficiently adding usage guidance. Every word serves a clear function, making it appropriately sized 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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return values or behavioral traits, which is a gap since there's no output schema to compensate. However, the simple nature of a read operation keeps it from being severely inadequate.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'note_path' parameter with examples. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that the path can come from 'search results' or be a 'note title', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'full content of a specific note', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like knowledge_search or knowledge_write, which would require a more specific scope statement.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Use the path from search results or the note title', suggesting it's for retrieving content after identifying a note. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_search for finding notes or knowledge_write for modifying them, leaving some ambiguity.

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