AnythingLLM MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Invoke an agent with input' hints at a non-destructive operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Invoke an agent with input'), front-loaded with the core action. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it efficiently structured despite its brevity, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity of invoking an agent, lack of annotations, no output schema, and vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'invoke' means operationally, what the expected output is, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions for 'agentId' and 'input'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes valid input or agent IDs. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Invoke an agent with input' states the basic action (invoke) and resource (agent), but is vague about what 'invoke' entails compared to siblings like 'chat_with_workspace' or 'create_agent'. It doesn't specify whether this triggers execution, returns a response, or initiates a conversation, leaving the purpose ambiguous beyond the minimal verb+resource pairing.

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. With siblings like 'chat_with_workspace' or 'create_agent', it's unclear if 'invoke_agent' is for one-off interactions, agent execution, or another purpose. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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