AnythingLLM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, potential side effects, or any rate limits. For a system-level mutation tool, this lack of behavioral information is critically inadequate.

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 at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring rules, it's not penalized for being too brief. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information.

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?

For a system-level mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what system settings are, what can be updated, the expected response format, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the 'settings' parameter has a description), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional details about the structure or content of the settings object.

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 'Update system settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_system_settings'. While it clearly indicates a write operation on system settings, it doesn't specify what kind of settings or what aspects can be updated, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_workspace_settings' or 'update_agent'.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_system_settings' (for reading) or other update tools for different resource types.

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