Joern 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 states it 'gets' information (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires prior CPG loading, error handling (e.g., invalid call ID), performance considerations, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The @param and @return annotations are structured but slightly redundant with the first sentence. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined by integrating annotations into the main text.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return value structure (beyond 'method info'), error cases, dependencies (e.g., on 'load_cpg'), and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool in a complex CPG analysis context, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('id') and clarifies it's 'The id of the call', which matches the schema's 'call_id'. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain format (e.g., string type, expected values) or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With 1 parameter and low coverage, it partially compensates but remains basic.

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 action ('Get') and target resource ('method info'), specifying it retrieves method information associated with a call ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_call_code_by_id' (which gets call code) and 'get_referenced_method_full_name_by_call_id' (which gets only method name), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_method_full_name_by_id' (which might get similar info by method ID).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded CPG from 'load_cpg'), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_referenced_method_full_name_by_call_id' (which might return less detail). The description implies usage when you have a call ID and want method info, but lacks explicit context.

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