Code Review 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 but offers minimal insight. It mentions the tools (ESLint/tsc/Prettier) but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only analysis or modifies files, potential side effects (e.g., formatting changes with Prettier), error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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—a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. Every part ('Run ESLint/tsc/Prettier on files') contributes essential information, making it efficient and easy to parse at a glance.

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 complexity of running multiple static analysis tools, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like what the output includes (e.g., linting results, errors), how to interpret results, or prerequisites (e.g., installed dependencies), leaving users with inadequate information for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal value by implying that 'files' are the target and that 'runPrettier' and 'runTsc' control which tools to execute, but it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., file paths), default behaviors, or interactions between parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 ('Run') and the tools involved (ESLint/tsc/Prettier) on specific resources ('files'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'code-review' or 'security.run_semgrep' that might also analyze code, leaving room for ambiguity in a multi-tool context.

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. For example, it doesn't explain whether this is for pre-commit checks, CI/CD integration, or ad-hoc analysis, nor does it mention sibling tools like 'code-review' or 'security.run_semgrep' that might overlap in functionality. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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