AnythingLLM 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. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' encompasses (e.g., metadata, settings, or content). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, achieving ideal conciseness for a simple 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on what 'details' include, error handling, or usage compared to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and application in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'slug' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or where to find the slug). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description, which fits here.

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 ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific workspace'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' (which lists multiple) and 'get_workspace_settings' (which focuses on settings), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'details' includes.

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 (e.g., needing a workspace slug), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for listing all workspaces), or refer to sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'search_workspace'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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