Context7 MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the selection process (prioritization criteria like name similarity, description relevance, documentation coverage, trust score), response format expectations, and handling of edge cases (ambiguous queries, no matches). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections (usage rule, selection process, response format) and avoids redundancy. However, it includes some implementation details (e.g., 'analyze the query') that might be more appropriate for agent instructions rather than tool description, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (involving matching algorithms and multiple output scenarios) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining the expected response format and edge cases. However, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., data types) to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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% for the single parameter 'libraryName', so the schema already documents it adequately. The description doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of valid library names or formatting nuances), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 specific verb 'resolves' and resource 'package/product name to a Context7-compatible library ID', and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'get-library-docs' by stating it must be called first unless the user provides a library ID. This provides excellent differentiation and clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before get-library-docs') and when not to use it ('unless the user explicitly provides a library ID'). It names the alternative scenario and sibling tool, offering comprehensive usage instructions.

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