AnythingLLM 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. It states the tool clears history but doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects system performance, or has rate limits. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility or permissions, nor does it explain what 'clear' entails (e.g., permanent deletion, archiving). For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, 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%, with the single parameter 'slug' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond implying the workspace context, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles 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 action ('Clear') and resource ('all chat history for a workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_document' or 'delete_workspace', which might also remove data but target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or related tools like 'get_chat_history' for viewing history before clearing, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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