mcp-cloudron

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 key behaviors: it's a read-only search operation (implied by 'Search'), returns specific app details (name, description, version, icon URL, install count), sorts results by relevance, and handles empty queries by returning all apps. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core purpose, return details, and special case handling. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameter implications adequately. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format (e.g., structure of app details, pagination), though the listed fields provide a reasonable baseline.

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 the single parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating that an empty query returns all apps, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like search syntax, character limits, or example queries. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('Search the Cloudron App Store') and resource ('available applications'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cloudron_list_apps (which likely lists installed apps) and cloudron_get_app (which likely retrieves details of a specific installed app). It precisely defines the scope as searching the App Store rather than installed apps.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: for searching the App Store. It implies an alternative use case (empty query returns all apps) but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over cloudron_list_apps (which might list installed apps) or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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