cortex-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it lists enabled analyzers with optional filtering. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether it returns only basic metadata or full analyzer details. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List all enabled analyzers') followed by the optional capability ('optionally filtered by data type'). There is zero wasted verbiage.

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?

For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about each analyzer (e.g., names, IDs, capabilities), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., maximum results). Given the sibling tools involve detailed analyzer operations, more context about the listing output would be helpful.

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 'dataType' fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optionally filtered by data type', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'all enabled analyzers', with optional filtering by data type. It distinguishes from siblings like cortex_get_analyzer (single analyzer) and cortex_list_responders (different resource), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from cortex_list_jobs (different resource).

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 like cortex_get_analyzer (for specific analyzer details) or cortex_run_analyzer (to execute analyzers). It mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate versus retrieving all analyzers.

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