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. It states this is a 'get' operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly or describe other behaviors like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of optimal 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 adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks context about what 'settings' includes, how they differ from workspace metadata, and behavioral details. With no output schema, it doesn't describe return values, and with no annotations, it misses safety or operational context, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 fully documented as 'The workspace slug/identifier'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'slug' is or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 'Get settings for a specific workspace' clearly states the action (get) and resource (workspace settings), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' (which likely retrieves workspace metadata) or 'get_system_settings' (which retrieves system-level settings), leaving ambiguity about what exactly 'settings' encompasses compared to these 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_workspace_settings' over 'get_workspace' or 'get_system_settings', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of differentiation leaves the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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