cortex-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'enabled responders' and optional filtering, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or the format of the returned list. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 responders') and adds optional functionality ('optionally filtered by data type'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and use.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'responder' is in this context, the structure of the returned list, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 meaning by explaining that the 'dataType' parameter is for filtering by supported data type, which aligns with the schema's 100% coverage. Since the schema already fully describes the single parameter, the description provides no additional semantic value beyond what's in the structured data, meeting the baseline for 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all enabled responders'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'cortex_run_responder' by focusing on listing rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cortex_list_analyzers' or 'cortex_list_jobs', which are similar listing operations for different resource types.

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 implies usage for listing responders, particularly when filtering by data type is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cortex_get_analyzer' or 'cortex_list_analyzers', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative guidance.

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