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 mentions the retrieval mechanisms (links, tags, mentions) but doesn't describe what 'related' means operationally (e.g., ranking, thresholds), whether results are paginated, or any performance characteristics like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 purpose ('Find notes related to a concept') and adds clarifying detail ('by links, tags, or mentions') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex results (notes with relationships). It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., note metadata, relevance scores) or behavioral aspects like error conditions. For a retrieval 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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('concept' and 'max_results') adequately. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the 'concept' parameter is used for finding relatedness, which is already clear from the schema. 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 tool's purpose: 'Find notes related to a concept' with specific mechanisms mentioned ('by links, tags, or mentions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'knowledge_search' by focusing on relationship-based retrieval rather than general search, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context through 'related to a concept' and the mechanisms listed, suggesting this tool is for discovering connections between notes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'knowledge_search' or 'knowledge_backlinks', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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