axure-mcp-server

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 states the tool performs a 'health check,' implying a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify what the check entails (e.g., server status, connectivity, resource usage), expected response format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 the tool's complexity (simple health check) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., status indicators, metrics) or behavioral details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to understand the tool's full functionality.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's no additional burden beyond the empty schema.

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 tool's purpose as a 'health check for Axure MCP server runtime,' which is a specific verb ('health check') applied to a specific resource ('Axure MCP server runtime'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'axure_fetch' or 'axure_summary_prompt,' but the purpose is unambiguous for a health monitoring function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency, or context (e.g., use for diagnostics, monitoring, or troubleshooting), and there's no comparison to sibling tools. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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