Aptly 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. It mentions search behavior but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format beyond the schema's 'format' parameter. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential scope details, 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search tool with potential behavioral nuances (e.g., result limits, error handling), the description is incomplete. It covers what the tool does but not how it behaves or what it returns, leaving gaps for agent decision-making.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'repoName' is optional and 'query' is for package names/descriptions, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does 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 verb ('search') and resource ('packages'), specifying scope ('across repositories or in a specific repository'). It distinguishes from siblings like aptly_list_packages (which likely lists without querying) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-related tools if any existed.

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 implies usage for searching packages, with context on repository scope, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like aptly_list_packages or filtering in other tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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